MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
W. Diengdoh, J.
Masood Khan – Petitioner
versus
Smti. Millie Hazarika – Respondent
Crl.Petn. No.1 of 2021
Decided on 4.3.2021
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, 2005 – Sections 12 and 28 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Domestic violence case – Cognizance of offence – Quashing petition – Section 482 Cr.P.C provides for inherent power on High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code – 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, 22 and 23 of DV Act – Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is maintainable – Impugned order, has been passed by a court of competent jurisdiction and as such, on this count, same cannot be faulted – There is no apparent abuse of process which warrants interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petition dismissed and order passed by Magistrate modified. (Paras 38, 40, 47, 48, 49 and 50)
Result: Petition Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
W. Diengdoh, J.—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:
i) Committing any act of Domestic Violence.
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
Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra
Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.
Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
M.N. Ojha & Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr.
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr.
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 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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.