JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceeding in D.V.O.P. No.11 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli.

1. This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings in D.V.O.P. No.11 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, in so far as the Petitioners herein are concerned.

2. The Petitioners are Parents-in-law of the Respondent herein. The marriage between the Petitioners' son and the Respondent was solemnized on 30.1.2019 and a girl child was also born through the wedlock. The marital life of the Respondent came under strain leading to filing of D.V.O.P. No.11 of 2021. In the said Petition, the Respondent herein had arrayed her husband as the First Respondent, the Petitioners herein as the Respondents 2 & 3 and her brother-in-law and wife of brother-in-law as the Respondents 4 & 5. Contending that the institution of D.V.O.P. is an abuse of legal process, this Petition has been filed.

3. Though this Petition was filed as early as on 17.3.2021, the Registry did not number the Petition. Therefore, the learned Counsel made a mention before me yesterday for listing the matter. I directed the Registry to list the matter before me under the caption "For Maintainability".

4. The hesitation of the Registry to number the Petition appears to be on account of the divergent views expressed in some of the earlier Orders of the Madras High Court. Earlier, to quash the proceedings filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Petitions used to be filed under 482 of Cr.P.C. This was put an end to by a Hon'ble Judge of this Court vide order in Dr. P. Pathmanathan and others vs. V. Monica and others, 2021 (2) CTC 57. His Lordship Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the proceedings instituted under the Central Act 43 of 2005 are Civil in nature and therefore, Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. will not lie to quash them. Even while laying down a set of directions indicating the remedies available to the aggrieved parties, it was also held that a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the Petitioner. However, another Hon'ble Judge of this Court (His Lordship Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam) took a contrary view in P. Arun Prakash and others v. S. Sudhamary, 2021 (2) LW 518, and held that the proceedings filed under the Central Act 43 of 2005 before the Criminal Court can only be termed as Criminal proceedings. His Lordship further held that such proceedings cannot be transferred from a Criminal Court to a Civil Court/Family Court by exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

5. The above view was however not in consonance with the approach adopted by His Lordship Mr. Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira. G. Jeyakumar vs. Jeyanthi, Crl.O.P. No.17235 of 2016, dated 12.2.2021, was filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for transferring the D.V. Act proceedings from Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudhucherry to the file of the Family Court, Pudhucherry. After sustaining the contention that the proceedings are Civil in nature, His Lordship considered the question as to whether the High Court has the power to effect the transfer sought for when the Petition has been filed under Section 407, Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Judge in Paragraph 23 of the Order cited the celebrated decision in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1998 (5) SCC 649, in which the Apex Court held as follow