JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

CR-3407-2024 is being taken as lead case. Shorn of details, brief facts that need to be noticed are that, complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity, referred to as 'the Act of 2005') by respondent-wife against maternal uncle and aunt of her husband seeking protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19 and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act of 2005. Surprisingly, husband was not arraigned as a party in the complaint. Petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of the complaint claiming that the same has been filed by respondent-wife in collusion with her husband and is a counter-blast to the complaint filed by petitioners No.l and 3 against husband of the complainant. The complaint is thus an abuse of process of law.

2. Instant revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was claimed by counsel for the petitioners that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, have been held to be not maintainable by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M No.19553 of 2023 titled as Jaspal Kaur @ Pinki and another vs. State of Punjab and another. Petitioners having no alternate remedy have been constrained to approach this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Bench of this Court in Jaspal Kaur @ Piriki's case (supra) has relied upon ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of Madras High Court in Arul Daniel and others vs. Suganya, 2022 SCC Online Mad 5435.

3. At the stage of preliminary hearing, Single Bench expressed dissent with the view taken in Jaspal Kaur @ Pinki's case (supra) and referred the following questions to Larger Bench for adjudication:-

(i) Once Section 28(1) prescribes that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18,19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can it be held that application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is ousted?

(ii) In case Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not applicable, can an aggrieved person invoke power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

(iii) In case the aggrieved person is entitled to invoke power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can it be said that the same is limited only qua the issue of jurisdiction as held by Madras High Court?

4. To answer the questions referred, it will be apt to peruse the Statement of Objects and Reasons behind the enactment. Act of 2005 was enacted by Parliament in discharge of India's commitment to 'The Vienna Accord of 1994' and Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995), wherein domestic violence was acknowledged as an issue related to human rights. Statement of objects and reasons of the Act of 2005 reads as under:-

'STATEMENT OF OBJECTSAND REASONS

Domestic violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue and serious deterrent to development. The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged this. The United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its General Recommendation No. XII (1989) has recommended that State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind especially that occurring within the family.

2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety.

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