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.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri Sachin Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1/State, Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. This application/petition was taken up for hearing on the preliminary objection of maintainability in view of the conflicting decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

3. Inherent power of this Court is sought to be invoked under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 (corresponding Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973), to assail the proceedings initiated against the applicants under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act’).

4. Conflicting decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches have been brought to the notice of this Court on the issue of maintainability of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing an order passed on notice issued under Section 12 of D.V. Act. On the one hand are the decisions of this Court (Corum: Hon’ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.) dated 31.07.2024 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 6975 of 2013: Smt. Suman Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. and a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) dated 09.08.2024 passed in Application U/s No. 11130 of 2024 : Sandeep Kishore and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, whereas on the other hand is the decision of another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal J.) dated 27.11.2024 taking a divergent view in a bunch of applications/petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., leading Application U/s 482 No. 18994 of 2024: Devendra Agarwal & Others Vs. the State of U.P. and another. Whereas the decisions passed by this Court i.e. in Smt. Suman Mishra’s (supra) and decision passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court i.e. in Sandeep Kishore (supra), hold that application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the notice issued by the Protection Officer for the purpose of inquiry in pursuance of the order of the Magistrate passed on an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable, the later decision passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal J.) i.e. in Devendra Agarwal’s case (supra) has decided in favour of the maintainability of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

5. In Smt. Suman Mishra Vs the State of U.P. and another (supra), this Court was dealing with a situation wherein the Magistrate on an application filed by the victim under D.V. Act had directed to register it as miscellaneous case and also directed the Protection Officer to submit a domestic incident report after conducting a preliminary enquiry. The Protection Officer in turn, while conducting the said enquiry in compliance to the said order of the Magistrate, issued notice to the applicant/petitioner requiring her to submit reply, however, instead of participating in the preliminary inquiry, applicant/ petitioner had approached the Magistrate, seeking to quash the said notice/proceedings and delete her name, which was rejected by the Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, applicant/ petitioner had filed revision, which too was rejected by the revisional Court. In the aforesaid background, the applicant interdicted both the aforesaid orders before this Court in Application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6975 of 2013 and this Court after hearing the parties regarding maintainability of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, noted the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in a batch of matters, leading being P. Pathamanathan Vs. Monica, (2021) SCC Online Mad 8731, wherein the Madras High court extensively dealt with the object & various provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and had also relied on the authoritative judg