The High Court affirmed that applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are maintainable against proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to prevent abuse of process, invalidating the prior judgment in Suman Mishra.

Headnote:(A) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Maintainability of application against proceedings under the D.V. Act - It was held that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against orders passed under the D.V. Act to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. The judgment in Suman Mishra was found to be per incuriam due to its disregard for the precedential value of Dinesh Kumar Yadav's full bench decision. (Paras 46, 48)

Facts of the case:
The case involved multiple applications challenging proceedings under the D.V. Act and questioning the maintainability of Section 482 applications in light of conflicting judgments stemming from previous cases including Suman Mishra and Dinesh Kumar Yadav, among others.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the courts exercising jurisdiction under the D.V. Act are criminal courts, and proceedings related to it may involve both civil and criminal characteristics. The existing judgments did not adequately differentiate this nature, leading to the conclusion that a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application is indeed suitable to challenge proceedings under the D.V. Act.

Issues: Whether the judgment in Suman Mishra (which held that applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable against the D.V. Act) was accurate in light of its conflict with the full bench ruling in Dinesh Kumar Yadav and other cited cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the civil nature of proceedings under the D.V. Act while recognizing the criminal implications in cases of breaches. It determined that the lower court's ruling overlooked crucial precedents and thus warranted reconsideration. Furthermore, proceedings under the D.V. Act must adhere to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. when applicable.

Result: The court concluded that all defined questions were answered in favor of the applicants and would continue to hear the matters on their merits.

Table of Content
1. challenge to proceedings/orders under d.v. act (Para 1)
2. preliminary objections regarding maintainability of applications (Para 2)
3. legal arguments supporting maintainability of applications under d.v. act (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. counterarguments on application maintainability regarding d.v. act (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. court observations on the nature of proceedings under d.v. act (Para 12)
6. court clarification on definitions and roles under the d.v. act (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. discussion on rights and protections under d.v. act (Para 16)
8. legislative intent behind the d.v. act (Para 17 , 18)
9. analyses of previous judgements relating to d.v. act (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
10. court reasoning on d.v. act provisions (Para 22 , 23)
11. legal frameworks and implications of d.v. act (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
12. explanation of civil vs criminal character of d.v. act proceedings (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
13. constitutional insights into cases under d.v. act (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
14. overview of procedural powers regarding d.v. act (Para 38 , 39)
15. final adjudication on the nature of court proceedings under the d.v. act (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
16. conclusion on the maintainability of applications under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 47)

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. In all the connected applications either the proceedings under the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT , 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "D.V. Act, 2005") or the orders passed therein are challenged or prayer is made to expedite the proceeding under the D.V. Act, 2005.

2. During the hearing Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A., has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the judgement of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Suman Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others; Application u/s 482 No. 6975 of 2013, the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against the proceeding or orders passed under the D.V. Act, 2005. Therefore, a common question was framed with the consent of all the learned counsel appearing for the parties to determine whether in view of the judgement of the coordinate Bench in the case of Suman Mishra (supra), an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against the proceeding or order passed under the D.V. Act, 2005. The matter was heard at great length and judgement was reserved on 23.10.2024.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants

3. Km. Preete, learned counsel for the applicants in Application u/s 482 No. 18994 of 2024 addressed the Court in support of the maintainability of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the proceeding of the D.V. Act, 2005.

4. First submission of Km. Preete, learned counsel for the applicants, is that in the case of Suman Mishra (supra), the coordinate Bench has heavily relied upon the judgement of Kamatchi vs. Laxmi Narayanan; (2022) 15 SCC 50 as well as the Full Bench judgement of Madras High Court in Arul Daniel vs. Suganya; 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435 which was itself based on the judgement of Kamatchi (supra), though in the judgement of Kamatchi (supra) the issue of maintainability of application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. against the proceeding under the D.V. Act, 2005 was not before the Court and the only issue before the Apex Court was whether the period of limitation for taking cognizance as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is applicable in the proceeding of the D.V. Act, 2005.

5. It is further submitted by Km. Preete that while delivering the judgement in Kamatchi (supra), the Apex Court itself ignored the three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja; (2021) 1 SCC 414 in which the Apex Court observed that the proceeding under the D.V. Act, 2005 is akin to the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the proceeding under the D.V. Act, 2005 is the proceeding which is to be governed by the Cr.P.C. In support of her conten