2017 Supreme(AP) 50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
J. Shyam Babu - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and others - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 2888 of 2016
Decided On : 09-02-2017

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 141 - Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) r/w 12 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 468, 12, 18 to 23, 31, 32, Section 2(m), Sections 12 to 29, Sections 31 & 32 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - sub-section (1) of section 31 - Criminal Procedure Code - 190, Sections 4(2) and 5, 389 - Petitioner filed stating therein that said case started in the year and it came for his cross-examination after months and he made total payments of that his wife occupied his flat at and she created a poisonous atmosphere between her younger brother and himself which resulted in his brother filing a false case against him; that she also got filed a false case against him through her sister and also instigated the land owners to file consumer case that the behaviour of his wife caused him acute mental cruelty, resulting in deterioration of his health and he was thrown to financial crisis; that he is borrowing amounts to pay maintenance to the children and that the DVC filed by her is not at all maintainable - It is the further case of the petitioner that in the cross-examination of the DVC petition on it was stated by her that she was abandoned by him by sending her out in and the DVC filed by her is in which is two years later to it and there is no domestic relationship subsisting for the two years to accrue cause of action and thereby the DVC is not maintainable and the same is labile to be dismissed - It is also further averment of the petitioner that the respondent looted away his hard earned money and utensils and that they lived for four years before going to Saudi and seven years after coming from Saudi that she made him to incur for her illegal desires and that he is ready to take welfare of his sons - Petitioner as respondent to this petition by filing a counter stating that the DVC respondent is prolonging the litigation by filing petition after petition and not even paying regular interim maintenance that the DVC was originally numbered in the year fixing the appearance of the DVC respondent in that the DVC respondent filed his chief affidavit - Petition by order dated observing that the relationship between the parties is covered by domestic relationship under Section of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the same cannot be disputed for admittedly she is his wife and the children are his sons in the wedlock - Held, compensation to a victim leave about Section compensation for ground less arrest, Section of the Code speaks of recovery of compensation as if fine by invoking Section of the Code. It is not even stated in any of the provisions including Sections of the Code that compensation is part of fine but for saying compensation, if at all awarded, the recovery is as fine - Fine is different from fine as if fine is one of the modes of sentences which is definitely for an offence. So far as compensation is concerned it is otherwise and it is not for offence alone - It can be for any offence also where to compensate - Once compensation is provided to be awarded by following the procedure under the Code even, Section also has no application at all for compensation is not an offence - Expression of the apex court and it is not the case where that by referring all these provisions it was held by interpreting compensation as part of the fine or as one of the modes of sentence and thereby the limitation is applicable - Conclusion on the principle of sub silentio can be taken aid from the expression of the Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector District which quoted with approval the expressions of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of and A One Granites State of U.P that a judgment sub is not law declared within the meaning of Article of the Constitution of India - claimed outcome of domestic relationship under Sections of the Act the question of application of period of limitation under Chapter XXXVI of the Code does not arise and the same have no application but for from what in the Act provided in case of non-payment of compensation awarded or for non-implementation of the orders passed under Sections of the Act to enforce the same for such violation which amounts to an offence to cognizance of which the period of limitation provided by Chapter XXXVI of the Code arises and not otherwise - Criminal Revision Case is thereby dismissed.