Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
T.G. Dinkar —Petitioner
versus
State of A.P. & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Petition No.5970 of 2014
Decided on 12.9.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.M.R. Velu, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad
For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3:Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT:
For filing of a case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, there cannot be any limitation.
Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 468 and 482 — Complaint by respondents wife and minor son of petitioner seeking orders including monetary order — Petition for quashing proceedings on ground that complaint was barred by limitation — Earlier quashing petition was filed on ground that complaint was a counterblast to petition for restitution of conjugal right filed by petitioner and that petition was dismissed on merits — 2nd quashing petition on ground of limitation though could be said to be maintainable but on merits it was without merits — For filing case u/s 12 of the Act there was no limitation — It was only where order was passed by Court and in case of violation of order that limitation of one year for initiating penal proceedings u/s 31 of the Act was provided — Petition was liable to be dismissed. (Paras 11 to 22)
Result: Petition dismissed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.—The petitioner, who is the sole respondent in D.V.C.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, seeks for the quashment of the same. The 2nd respondent is his wife. The 3rd respondent is the son of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent laid case seeking for reliefs of protection under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (the D.V. Act, for short) and of monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the D.V. Act. The petitioner claimed that the very case is not maintainable on the ground that the same is barred by limitation and consequently seeks for the quashment of D.V.C.No.25 of 2012.
Res Judicata:
2. The 2nd respondent and the petitioner were married to on 06-8-2006. The 3rd respondent was born on 18-6-2007. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that since the time of the birth of the child, the petitioner started harassing her for dowry and other financial benefits. The 2nd respondent filed D.V.C.No.15 of 2008 as well as M.C.No.31 of 2008 seeking for various reliefs under the provisions of the D.V. Act and under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, submitted that a compromise was struck between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent during the pendency of D.V.C.No.15 of 2008 and M.C.No.31 of 2008 when the petitioner agreed to take back respondents 2 and 3 into the matrimonial home subject to withdrawal of D.V.C.No.15 of 2008 and M.C.No.31 of 2008. It is his further case that on 20-12-2008, the 2nd respondent withdrew both the cases in terms of the oral compromise.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 further submitted that after withdrawal of the cases, the respondents 2 and 3 went to Pune to join the petitioner as he was working at Pune as a Software Engineer at that time. He alleged that the petitioner refused to admit respondents 2 and 3 into the matrimonial home initially on the ground that the time was not auspicious. Allegedly, the petitioner later started demanding for additional dowry.
5. The 2nd respondent became helpless and was forced to file D.V.C.No.3 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. The same was later transferred to the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and was renumbered as D.V.C.25 of 2012. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 pointed out that the petitioner has earlier filed a petition in Criminal Petition No.10314 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of D.V.C.No.3 of 2010 and that the same was dismissed by this Court through orders dated 02-7-2013 after hearing both sides. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the orders dated 02-7-2013 in Crl.P.No.10314 of 2011 which would operate as res judicata or issue estoppel.
6. Sri C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that there is no bar for filing a 2nd petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He further contended that the plea of limitation had not been taken in the earlier petition and that the present petition is laid on the sole ground that D.V.C.No.3 of 2010/D.V.C.No.25 of 2012 is barred by limitation. He contended that in the earlier petition in Crl.P.No.10314 of 2011, the petitioner contended that D.V.C.No.3 of 2010 was laid by the 2nd respondent as a counterblast to the petition by the petitioner seeking for restitution of his conjugal rights.
7. In K.Chinni Krishnaiah vs. State of A.P., 2000(1) ALT (Crl.) 507 it was noticed that the provisions under Order II, Rule 2 C.P.C do not apply to criminal proceedings and that a 2nd quash petition certainly would lie. The Division Bench referred to Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1002 which declared that the principles of res judicata do not ap
