SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

N.ANAND VENKATESH
P. Pathmanathan – Appellant
Versus
Tmt. V. Monica – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Amicus Curiae: Mr. A. Ramesh, Senior Counsel, Mr. Srinivasan, Counsel, Mr. G.R. Hari, Counsel, Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.28458 of 2029:Mr. C.S. Dhanasekaran, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.33643 of 2019:Mr. P.K. Naarayanan, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.16411 of 2019:Mr. K.P. Chandrasekaran, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.16389 of 2020:Mr. S. Sithirai Anandam, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.16450 of 2020: M/s. K.V. Law Firm
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.17156 of 2020:Mr. V. Paarthiban, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.19918 of 2020:Mr. M. Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.20434 of 2020:Mr. N.A. Nissar Ahmed, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.45 of 2021:Mr. W. Camyles Gandhi, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.73 of 2021:Mr. P. Ravi Shankar Rao, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.138 of 2021:Mr. R. Surya Prakash, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.184 of 2021:Mr. J. Deliban, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.191 of 2021:Mr. S. Sathyaraj, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.213 of 2021:Mr. S. Saranraj, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.216 of 2021:Mr. P. Veeraraghavan, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.233 of 2021:Mr. M. Sankar, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.243 of 2021:Mr. Rameshkumar Chopra, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.332 of 2021:Mr. S.T. Varadarajalu, Advocate
For the Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.349 of 2021: M/s. Chennai Law Associates
For the Respondents in Crl.OP.Nos.28458 of 2029 & Crl.OP.No.33643 of 2019:Mr. L. Mahendran, Advocate
For the Respondents in Crl.OP.No.16411 of 2019:Mr. A. Satha Sivam, Advocate
For the Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.16389 of 2020:M/s. Udaya P.S. Menon, Advocate

ORDER

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.—The issue that falls for consideration in these batch of cases relates to the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “D.V. Act” or “the Act”) in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” or “the Code”).

2. This Court had directed the Registry to put up a number of cases filed between 2017 and 2020, and pending, for quashing applications under Section 12 of the D.V Act. This Court was surprised to learn that over 1000 such cases were pending. The D.V Act endeavors the Magistrate to dispose an application filed under Section 12 (1) within 60 days from the date of its first hearing. However, here is a distressing scenario where the proceedings, in a majority of the cases, have come to a grinding halt without any progress for more than 3 years on account of the pendency of the petitions on the file of this Court.

3. Upon a close reading of the D.V Act, this Court found that the nature of rights that were protected and enforced under the Act were purely civil in nature. However, cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top