Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant; the learned A.G.A. for the State; and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3099 of 2014 pending in the Court of A.C.J.M (II), Allahabad, which has been instituted on an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act, 2005’) seeking various benefits/protection order under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the D.V. Act, 2005.

3. Application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 alleging that she was married to the applicant No. 1 on 7.12.2012 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs; that in her marriage, a large amount of money was spent and various articles were given; that the opposite parties i.e. the applicants herein were not satisfied and they raised demand for a car; that in connection with the said demand, she was harassed and even beaten; and finally on 28.12.2012, she was driven out of her matrimonial home whereas her jewellery articles, etc. were retained by the applicants herein. In her application she has alleged that the applicants had exhibited conduct constituting domestic violence which was first committed on the date of her marriage, thereafter, on 28.12.2012, when she was driven out of her matrimonial home and continues till date. On the said application notice/summons has been issued to the applicants to put in their appearance and submit reply. At this stage, the applicants have approached this Court for quashing of the proceeding.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants has sought quashing of proceeding not on the ground that the application, under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, does not disclose any cause of action, but, on the ground that since as per the own case of the opposite party, she had been driven out of her matrimonial home on 28.12.2012, therefore, the complaint would be barred by limitation provided under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), inasmuch as, the maximum sentence which can be awarded under the D.V. Act is of one year. It has been submitted that by virtue of Section 28 of the Act, the provisions of the Code are applicable to all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 of the D.V. Act, therefore, the impugned proceeding, which has been instituted after one year from the date the opposite party No. 2 was allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home, is barred by time and as such liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 32 of its judgement in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and another, (2011) 12 SCC 588, where it has been observed as follows :

“32. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and others, (2011) 6 SCC 508.”

5. Before dealing with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants it would be useful to examine the provisions of the D.V. Act, 2005. The said Act has been enacted as an Act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 of the D.V. Act, 2005 de