IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Cr.P.C. shall govern proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 and also those relating to an offence under Section 31 of D.V. Act on their commencement.

S.B. Shukre, J.—Hearing of this application filed by the deceased-applicant seeking quashing and setting aside of the proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the D.V. Act” for short) to obtain a monetary relief under Section 20 of the D.V. Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon, District Washim has been held by us to answer the questions as framed in the reference made over to us.

02. At the initial stage of the hearing of the application, which was before the learned Single Judge (Coram : A.R. Joshi, J.) of this Court, it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that there were conflicting decisions of different benches of this Court on the question of applicability of the provision of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to a proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act seeking various reliefs as provided under Section s 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act. The conflicting views taken by two different benches of this Court, that were brought to the notice of the learned Judge arose from the cases of Mangesh Sawant vs. Minal Vijay Bhosale – (2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 1113 (Coram : A.S. Oka, J.) and Narayan Thool and others vs. Mala Chandan Wani in Criminal Writ Petition No.773/2014 (Coram: S.B. Shukre, J.). The view in the case of Mangesh Sawant was that the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act being not criminal but civil, power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could not be invoked for quashing of the proceeding and whereas the view taken in the case of Narayan Thool was quite opposite holding that such power of quashing of proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was available. In view of the conflict of views, the learned Judge made a reference to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench for resolution of the conflict of views. While making the reference, the learned Judge framed two questions, which are as follows:

(i) Whether or not the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are in the nature of criminal proceedings ?

(ii) Whether or not the High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ?

03. Accordingly, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to direct to constitute the Division Bench presided over by one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) to hear and decide the reference made by the learned Single Judge in this criminal application.

04. As the hearing of the reference before the Division Bench commenced, a new development took place. It was informed at the bar that the original applicant-Nandkishor was no more. The matter was adjourned for further consideration and the learned Counsel for the respondent confirmed the fact that the original applicant-Nandkishor was dead. Thereafter, considering the fact that the questions under reference were required to be answered appropriately, an order was passed on 18/08/2017 directing the Registry of this Court to publish a notice in the cause list, pointing out the issues referred and requesting the Advocates’ willing to assist the Court to resolve the issues on the next date of hearing, which was 11/09/2017.

05. In response to the said notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.K. Pathan, appeared before the Court in addition to Shri Amit Kinkhede, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri C.A Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent. During the course of hearing, attention of the Division Bench was invited to one more decision rendered in the case of Sukumar Pawanlal Gandhi and another vs. Bhakti Sushil Gandhi and others – (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 12942) by another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.S. Oka and A.A. Sayed, JJ.), wherein a view was taken that the High Court could not ex