Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Jallarapu Laxman Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu and Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1137 & 1247 of 2017
Decided On : 01-11-2017
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Maintainability of the Criminal revisions – Interim maintenance – Provision confers on the Parliament the power to make laws in pursuance of international treaties, conventions etc. The Domestic Violence Act was passed in furtherance of the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the CEDAW. Since the right to be protected from domestic violence is a right enshrined and guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, more particularly Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers the right to life and liberty in negative terms stating that it may not be taken away except by procedure established by law, as a result of judicial decisions, to be fair, just and reasonable – Held, scope of appeal is wider than the scope of revision. In a revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. mostly the jurisdiction is limited to law whereas in an appeal, the appellate Court has got wider power of re-appreciating the entire evidence to come to an independent conclusion and reverse the orders passed by the Courts below. In a revision, unless the Court finds apparent error in the findings recorded by the Courts below shall not exercise power of revision and interfere with the orders passed by the subordinate Courts under its jurisdiction. In view of wider scope of appeal provided under Section 29 of the Act, revision against an order passed under Section 23(1) and (2) of the Act cannot be entertained keeping in view the intention of Legislature in enacting the law for the benefit of the women who are subjected to domestic violence. Therefore, any other interpretation to the provision i.e. Section 29 of the Act would frustrate the intention of the Legislature to disable the aggrieved person to redress their claim within the ambit of the provision and driving such aggrieved person may render the remedy under the Act redundant. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the various High Courts, I am of the view that a revision under Sections 397 and 401 is not maintainable, against, either an order passed under Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Section 23 of the Act and only an appeal is maintainable against such order under Section 29 of the Act – Revision dismissed
1. These two revisions are filed by two different petitioners aggrieved by the order in Crl. MP No. 348 of 2017 in DVC No. 4 of 2017 dated 06.03.2017 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem and order in Crl. MP No. 172 of 2016 in DVC No. 4 of 2015 dated 27.04.2016 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial, respectively.
2. The common issue in these two matters is about maintainability of the revisions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against an interlocutory order passed by the Courts below in respective petitions.
3. In Crl. MP No. 348 of 2017 in DVC No. 4 of 2017, the Court below directed the employer of the respondent i.e. the General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Kothaguda Area, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, to withhold an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from and out of the retirement benefits of the respondent i.e. Jallarapu Laxman Rao, S/o Pedda Venkateswarlu. In Crl. MP No. 172 of 2016 in DVC No. 4 of 2015, the Court below ordered payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife-second respondent herein. These two orders passed by two different Courts below are assailed in these two revisions questioning the illegality and irregularity of the said orders.
4. Sri M.V. Raja Raam, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. RC No. 1247 of 2017, would contend that against an interim passed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act for brevity), a revision lies under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. before a High Court or under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before a Sessions Court, since an interim order would not decide the substantive rights of the parties. He also drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 23, 28 and 29 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act enables the Magistrate to pass an interim order in favour of the aggrieved person and Section 28 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed under the Act. Section 29 of the Act enables the person aggrieved by the interim order or final order passed under Section 12 of the Act or Section 23 of the Act to file an appeal before the Court of Session. Finally, he contended that when an ex-parte order is passed, the remedy available to the person aggrieved by the order is to file a petition before the Magistrate and whereas against an order passed on merits, after hearing both the counsel, revision would lie under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court or under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. Since the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is concurrent, the party aggrieved by such an order passed by the Courts below may either approach the Sessions Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, a revision would lie against the orders under challenge and placed reliance on judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Sulochana and Another vs. Kuttappan and Others, 2007 Criminal Law Journal 2057 in support of his contention.
5. Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. RC No. 1137 of 2017, would contend that the remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is available to a person aggrieved by an interlocutory order and apart from that, the provisions of the Act would not override the general provisions of Cr.P.C. which confer revisional jurisdiction on the Court i.e. the Sessions Court and the High Court and therefore, in the absence of any bar under the Act, a revision is maintainable. He placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Krishnan and Another vs. Krishnaveni and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 241 and G. Venkata Mutya Venu Gopal vs. G. Venkata Ramanamma and Others, 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 179 (A.P.). On the strength of these principles, both the counsel requested to pass appropriate orders in these two revision petitions.
6. In view of the contentions
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
