JUDGMENT :

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. The instant revisional application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 initiated by the opposite party being the daughter-in-law of the revisionist no. 1 Narayan Biswas.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the State has raised objection regarding the maintainability of the present revision on the grounds, inter alia, that as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘DV’ Act hereinafter) is a Special Act, the General Act like Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not prevail over it. In other words the provisions of DV Act, 2005 will prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict. In this regard he has cited judicial decisions reported in Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I reported at (2008) 3 SCC 674.

3. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to the statement of object and reasons of the DV Act, 2005 which may be quoted as hereunder:-

“3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society.”

4. According to learned counsel the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the Act is only ‘civil’ in nature, and as it has been specifically mentioned in the statement of objects and reasons, any remedy other than that of civil nature will not be entered while dealing with cases under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the DV Act, 2005 in short hereinafter.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that in a proceeding under DV Act, 2005 there is involvement of private parties only, whereas in a criminal litigation, the State is a party and instead of ‘relief’, ‘punishment’ is prescribed. The main purpose of the DV Act would have frustrated/failed if the intention of the legislature were to punish the respondent by treating him as an accused. Under the DV Act the aggrieved person may seek for relief of protection orders, residence orders monetary reliefs, custody orders and compensation orders. According to learned counsel, from Section 12 itself it is quite evident that the remedies which are available to the aggrieved person pertain to the civil remedies of all the aforesaid reliefs and the breach of a protection order or an interim protection order alone is a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 31 and 32(1) of the DV Act, 2005.

6. According to the learned counsel of the State, there are cases wherein the Hon’ble Courts opined that an amalgamation of reliefs as aforesaid would not per se destroy the nature and identity of two separate and distinct jurisdictions. It is further contended that there is no whisper of the term ‘accused’ in the DV Act, 2005. Therefore, the intention of the legislature in this regard was not to give the Act a criminal perspective. There is only one explanation and that is in Section 31 of the Act. It is clearly written that in case of breach of protection or interim order, an offence shall be deemed to have been committed and thus the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will apply. The term ‘imprisonment’ and the word ‘fine’ are first used in this Section, so as to give it a ‘criminal’ touch. If the civil reliefs are not complied with by the parties then the Magistrate can resort to criminal procedures and measures for protecting the rights of women from domestic violence in the society. In this regard the case of Sambhu Prasad Singh Vs. Manjari reported at (2012) SCC OnLine Del 1371 has been cited wherein it has been observed that domestic violence per se is not a criminal offence and only when there is a breach of the protection order under Section 18 the same