Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
Smt. Suman Mishra - Applicant
Versus
The State Of U.P And Ors. - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 6975 of 2013
Decided On : 31-07-2024
PROTECTION OF WOMEN - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT - Section 12, Section 28, Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court discussed the applicability of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly Section 12, which allows a woman to seek protection orders against domestic violence. It emphasized that the proceedings under the DV Act are civil in nature and not criminal, thus the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash such proceedings. The court also highlighted that the procedure under the DV Act is distinct from that of the Cr.P.C., and the issuance of notices under the DV Act does not equate to a summons in criminal proceedings. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., affirming the lower court's orders and allowing the domestic violence proceedings to continue.
Fact of the Case:
Smt. Suman Mishra filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against her under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by her sister-in-law, Smt. Parul Mishra. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected her application, which was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The complaint alleged domestic violence and sought various protective orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable as the proceedings under the DV Act are civil in nature and distinct from criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the issuance of notices under the DV Act does not constitute a summons and that the applicant should have responded to the notice rather than seeking to quash the proceedings.
Issues: The main issues were whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was maintainable in the context of proceedings under the DV Act and whether the applicant's name could be removed from the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not criminal in nature and cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court reiterated that the DV Act provides its own procedural framework, which does not align with the criminal procedure outlined in the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, allowing the domestic violence proceedings to continue as per the provisions of the DV Act.
JUDGMENT :
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) :
A. Prelude
1. Applicant, Smt. Suman Mishra, who is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.2-Smt. Parul Mishra, has filed the instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki in Complaint Case No. 744 of 2012 : Smt. Parul Mishra and another Vs. Nishant Mishra and others, as well as the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2012 : Smt. Suman Mishra Vs. Smt. Parul Mishra and others.
2. Apparently, by the impugned order dated 13.04.2012, application filed by the applicant dated 09.08.2011 seeking to quash the proceeding instituted against her by Smt. Parul Mishra (opposite party no.2 herein) in Complaint Case No. 744 of 2012 and a prayer to delete her name arrayed as opposite party No.7 in Complaint Case No. 744 of 2012, was rejected, which came to be affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2012 while rejecting the revision, by the impugned order dated 21.09.2013.
B. Factual background
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, as borne out from the pleadings, are that opposite party no.2-Smt. Parul Mishra had approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by filing application/complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act, 2005’) against nine persons including the applicant, thereby seeking protection orders, residence orders and compensation orders to be passed under various provisions of DV Act, 2005 and also seeking for monetary reliefs under Section 22 of the DV Act, 2005.
4. It was stated in the aforesaid application/complaint case by the opposite party no.2-Smt. Parul Mishra that her marriage was solemnized with Nishant Mishra in accordance with Hindu rites, rituals and customs on 20.02.2007. At the time of marriage, her parents and relatives gave sufficient dowry and Stridhan, including one Maruti WagonR Car, cash, Jewellery, furniture and household items, value of which would be Rs.20,00,000/-. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter, namely, Km. Garvita alias Vibhu was born. Her husband Nishant Mishra is working as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical Boiler Maintenance Care)/Chief General Manager, Parichha Thermal Power Station, Jhansi and his monthly salary from all sources was Rs.50,000/-. After marriage, opposite party no.2 was living her marital life in a joint family, but her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law (applicant herein) and other opposite parties in the aforesaid complaint case used to torture her by insulting and harassing her in various ways and they also used to assault and abuse her from time to time and they even were planning to kill her by giving slipping pill.
5. Apparently, vide order dated 15.04.2011, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in view of the aforesaid complaint of the opposite party No.2, directed to register the aforesaid complaint/ application as miscellaneous case and also directed the Protection Officer to submit a domestic incident report. In compliance thereof, the complaint/ application of the opposite party no.2-Smt. Parul Mishra and Kumari Garvita alias Vibhu was registered as Complaint Case No. 774 of 2012.
6. On perusal of Annexure No.2, which is an application filed by the applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, it seems that a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Protection Officer for compliance of the aforesaid order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 15.04.2011 and for this purpose, the Protection Officer had issued notice to the applicant requiring to submit her reply, however, it appears that instead of participating in the preliminary inquiry before the Protection Officer, the applicant had filed an appl
The court established that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature and distinct from criminal proceedings, thus not subject to quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable.
The court established that applications under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not maintainable for quashing proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as such proceedings....
Applications made under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, are not maintainable.
A petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C would not lie to quash an application under Section 12 of the D.V Act.
A petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C would not lie to quash an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to challenge the proceedings filed under Chapter IV of the D.V.Act, and the availabi....
(1) Relief sought for under Chapter IV of D.V. Act is not in nature of a formal accusation like in a criminal case and person against whom such a relief is sought for, is not an accused before Magist....
Proceedings initiated under Section 12 seeking reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 are civil in nature – Proceedings under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. are not to be fo....
Conflicting decisions on the maintainability of applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing notices under the Domestic Violence Act necessitate referral to a larger bench for clarity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
