Limitations under Section 468 of the CrPC do not apply until there is a breach of an order issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Md. Mushtaque Alam, learned APP for the State and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2.

2. The present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) to quash the entire proceedings of Domestic Violence Case No.4 of 2023 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘D.V. Act 2005’) dated 13.02.2023 against the petitioners, which was filed by opposite party no.2, namely, Nivedita Nishchal, wife of petitioner no.1.

3. Admittedly, there is no impugned order including any interim order in view of Section 23(2) of the Act of 2005, passed in aforesaid proceeding.

4. Case of complainant/O.P. No.2, in brief, speaks that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner no.1 on 07.12.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Patna. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born to them on 24.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 started to commit physical and mental harassment by demanding money from her parents for purchasing a house at Bengaluru and due to non-fulfillment of his aforesaid demand, the husband ousted her from their shared household at Bengaluru. She has no personal income, whereas her husband is earning about Rs. 5 lacs per month and spending a luxurious life ignoring complainant and her daughter, as he is not extending any monetary support.

5. Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel while arguing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the present case was filed almost with a delay of eight years from the alleged date of incident and, therefore, same is barred under Section 468 of the CrPC. It is further submitted that aforesaid case was lodged against the distant relative i.e. married daughters, who were married long before the marriage of complainant/O.P. No.2 with petitioner no.1. They are living separately and having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of complainant and her husband.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Narain that the present complaint under D.V. Act has been filed in retaliation of divorce case filed by the petitioner no.1/husband being Matrimonial Case (MC) No.1335 of 2015/renumbered as 168 of 2024 before learned Principal Family Judge at Bengaluru, Karnataka, which now transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is submitted by Mr. Narain that after the filing of the said divorce case in retaliation, the complainant/O.P. No.2 also filed a Complaint Case No.1684 of 2016 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging therein almost similar and identical allegations for which the learned trial court has taken cognizance only against petitioner no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, where the allegation raised against other members were found false. In this context, it is further pointed out that O.P. No.2 has also filed a maintenance case bearing No. 280(M) of 2015 pending before the court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, where vide order dated 26.02.2018, the O.P. No.2 is getting maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is pointed out that the present case under D.V. Act, 2005 was lodged out of vengeance to harass the innocent family members of petitioner no.1 as no cognizance was taken against them in Complaint Case No.1684 of 2016 and furthermore, the O.P. No.2 is not happy with the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/-. It is submitted that having all such pending litigation in hand, the O.P. No.2 kept silence for long seven years and, thereafter, all of a sudden, without having no cause of action, the present domestic violence case was filed in t