Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Wanlura Diengdoh, J.
Masood Khan - Appellants
Vs.
Millie Hazarika - Respondent
Crl. Petn. No. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 04-03-2021
DV Act, 2005 - Domestic Violence - Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 31 - The court discussed the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the nature of proceedings under the DV Act, 2005. The court emphasized that the proceedings under the DV Act, particularly for proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, are governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also highlighted the wide scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the need to exercise it sparingly and with caution. The court found that the circumstances did not warrant interference by the court, except to modify a specific direction in the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2, who had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005) against the Petitioner. The Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings of the DV case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition was partly allowed, and the impugned order was modified to exclude the alienation of assets or operation of bank accounts solely in the Petitioner's name from the restrictions imposed by the court. The court emphasized that the Petitioner had the remedy of appeal under the DV Act, 2005.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the nature of proceedings under the DV Act, 2005. The court also addressed the specific direction in the impugned order regarding the alienation of assets and operation of bank accounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the proceedings under the DV Act, particularly for proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, are governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also highlighted the wide scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the need to exercise it sparingly and with caution.
Final Decision: The court found that the circumstances did not warrant interference by the court, except to modify a specific direction in the impugned order. The petition was partly allowed, and the matter was disposed of with no cost.
JUDGMENT :
Wanlura Diengdoh, J.
1. Proceedings in C.R. Case No. 204 (S) of 2020 between the parties herein with the Respondent No. 2 (The Respondent No. 1, State of Meghalaya has since been struck of from these proceedings vide Order dated 18.01.2021) as the Aggrieved Person and the Petitioner herein as the Respondent, which is an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to the DV Act, 2005) pending before the Court of the Learned Magistrate, Shillong is under question in this instant petition filed by the Petitioner/Respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The background of the dispute lies in the fact that the Petitioner herein and the Respondent No. 2 were married on 09.10.2000 in Dibrugarh, Assam, and thereafter lived together as husband and wife at their matrimonial home at Dibrugarh.
3. From the facts and circumstances as revealed from this petition, it appears that differences and misunderstanding have cropped up in the relationship between the two to the extent that, when the Respondent No. 2 sometime in September 2019, went on a tour to the United Kingdom after staying for a few days at Mumbai for the birth of the child of her sister and on return to Mumbai on 11.01.2020, never came back to her matrimonial home at Dibrugarh.
4. On 23.09.2020, the Respondent No. 2 had issued a legal notice upon the Petitioner containing certain allegations with threat of initiation of criminal proceedings, to which the Petitioner in his reply dated 16.10.2020 has refuted such allegations and has expressed his desire to continue his marital relationship with her.
5. The Petitioner has also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights on 15.12.2020 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Kamrup, Guwahati being numbered as F.C Civil Case No. 732/2020 (Masood Khan v. Millie Hazarika). However, a few days later on or about 16.12.2020 the Respondent No. 2 filed a Divorce case being Mat (Divorce) Case No. 15(H)2020 (Smti Millie Hazarika v. Shri Masood Khan) before the Court of the District Judge, Shillong.
6. The Petitioner has also filed a suit for partition on 17.12.2020 being T.S No. 16 (H) 2020 (Masood Khan v. Millie Hazarika) in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, East Khasi Hills, Shillong.
7. On 22.12.2020 the Respondent No. 2, has filed a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V Act, 2005) in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Khasi Hills, Shillong numbered as C.R Case No. 204 (S) of 2020 against the Petitioner herein.
8. The said domestic violence case appears to have been endorsed to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Smti D.M.K.S. Shadap) who vide order dated 06.01.2021 in C.R Case No. 204 (S) of 2020 has passed an order granting ex-parte interim protection u/s. 18 of the DV Act, 2005 inter alia, prohibiting the Petitioner herein/accused from the following:
(ii) Aiding or abetting in the commission of the acts of domestic violence.
(iii) Attempting to communicate in any form whatsoever with the aggrieved person including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact.
(iv) Alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent including any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the court.
(v) Causing violence to the family members, dependents, other relatives of the aggrieved person or any person who gives the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence.
9. As stated above, the Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 06.01.2021, has preferred this instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings of the said C.R Case No. 204 (S) of 2020.
10.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the need to exercise it sparingly and with caution, particularly in the context of ....
Proceedings under DV Act being governed by procedure under Cr.P.C, logical conclusion would be that an application under Section 482 is maintainable qua order passed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21....
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....
Domestic violence is an amalgamation of criminal offence and civil wrong – Inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would be available for redressal of grievances of party arising f....
The court established that the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the CrPC are applicable to proceedings under the DV Act, allowing for quashment of proceedings that are deemed to be an abuse of proce....
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 judg....
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
