The main legal point established in the judgment is that the one-year limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. does not bar the claim for return of Stridhan in cases of domestic violence.

Heard Mr. D. K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the judgment dated 29.04.2015 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 29(3) of 2014 is partly challenged.

3. The appeal which was filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was from the order dated 18.06.2014, delivered in the proceeding for the protection order and for return of the Stridhan being CR(DV)21 of 2013. By the order dated 18.06.2014, the Magistrate has directed as under :

"Thus, therefore, considering all this aspect, I find, as the present case is filed after one year of domestic violence, the same is barred by law of limitation and not maintainable and the aggrieved petitioner is not entitled to get any Stridhan and properties."

The said appeal was filed to question the legality of that findings.

4. By the impugned order dated 29.04.2015, delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 29(3) of 2014 that finding was reversed on observing as under :

"Learned Magistrate referred the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and Section 28 and 32 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, to decide that within one year of the domestic violence the petition for return of Stridhan is to be filed. Section 28 deals with the proceeding under Section 12, 18 to 23, offence under Section 31 which are to be governed by the Cr.P.C. As per Section 28(2) there is nothing in Sub-Section 1 to prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12. Section 32 deals with the cognizance of offence under Section 31. In this case, there is nothing about the breach of protection order. The petition was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, for return of Stridhan. Domestic violence is proved by convincing evidence before the trial Court.

While giving decision on the point of domestic violence, point No.1, Learned Magistrate viewed that there was incident for domestic violence as alleged by the aggrieved petitioner. The findings is based on the evidence of both the parties on proper appreciation. On the evidence on record, Learned Magistrate also mentioned about the admission of the respondents that 14 nos. of articles still are in their house, those were given in the marriage. This is supported by the report of the Protection Officer, CDPO Kakraban, given on 18.9.13. Regarding golden ornaments Learned Magistrate viewed that the respondents failed to produce corroborative and reliable evidence to support that the petitioner had taken those articles with her at the time of her final departure from her husband's house. Learned Magistrate also viewed that to deprive the petitioner, the respondents tried to nullify the claim. So, he rightly came to the conclusion that 14 nos. of articles, as mentioned in para 12, cash Rs. 70,000/-, wooden khat, three sofa, alna, tea table, steel show case, colour TV, golden ear ring, golden poller bed and beddings, pillows, bed sheet, mosquito net, shari and pitcher are Stridhan. Those are to be returned to the petitioner. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. put no bar on such claim. Section 468 Cr.P.C. deals with the limitation in taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. One year limitation is given when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding of one year. In this instant case, offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable less than one year not committed and no case under Section 31 for breach of protection order also filed. The domestic violence is a continuous violence and the petitioner still under the domestic violence. Therefore, her claim can not be barred on the point of limitation. This findings of the Learned Magistrate, therefore, is liable to be