FIRs under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot be registered without a prior protection order, making related proceedings legally void.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Diwakar, J.

1. Heard Shri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material available on record.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 494 of 2013, under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005'), registered at Police Station Swar, District Rampur, which is presently pending before the Court of I^st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

3. The principal question for adjudication in this application is whether the police is empowered to register an FIR on the basis of a complaint submitted by the “aggrieved person” carry out investigation, and thereafter submit a charge-sheet under Section 31 of the Act, 2005.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the registration of an FIR under Section 31 of the Act, 2005, is legally impermissible, thereby rendering all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom void ab initio. It is further submitted that the procedure adopted by the then learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the present case has not been in conformity with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and appears to be procedurally flawed. Apart from other submissions on merits, learned counsel for the applicants also submits that the present application has been filed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. This Court, by order dated 21.01.2025, directed the then Station House Officer (SHO), the Investigating Officer (I.O.), and the officer who had forwarded the charge-sheet to the Court to remain present virtually through video conferencing on the next date of hearing to explain the reasons for filing the charge-sheet under Section 31 of the Act, 2005.

6. In compliance with the aforesaid order, Sub-Inspector Shri Javed Ali appeared virtually and submitted that he was not fully conversant with the applicable legal provisions at the relevant time, as he had joined the service only a month prior to the completion of the investigation. Circle Officer Shri Ravi Shankar, who had forwarded the charge-sheet, submitted that he had assumed the charge merely a day before filing of the charge-sheet and, therefore, sought leniency for the procedural lapse. A similar explanation was tendered by the then Station House Officer (S.H.O.). Upon due consideration of their submissions and the circumstances on record, their personal appearance was exempted. The concerned officers were accordingly let off with a stern warning and were duly sensitized to exercise greater caution, legal awareness, and diligence in the discharge of their official duties in the future.

7. By order dated 18.02.2025, this Court had called for an explanation from the then learned Magistrate, through the Registrar General of this Court, who had taken cognizance on the basis of a police report filed for an offence under Section 31 of the Act, 2005. Upon perusal of the office report dated 03.03.2025, it transpires that the said Judicial Officer is presently posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.

8. In compliance with the order dated 04.03.2024, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, submitted a report stating that, while serving as the ACJM, Rampur, cognizance was taken agai