The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 9/2018 dated 7th January 2018 registered at the Police Station, Manali District, Kullu for the commission of an offence punishable by Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) 2005.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant, Pooja Devi, filed an application

under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali (learned Trial Court) asserting that the learned Trial Court had directed the petitioner on 30th June 2017 to provide separate accommodation consisting of one room, one kitchen and one bathroom, compensation of ₹10,000 and maintenance of ₹4000 per month to the complainant. The petitioner failed to pay the arrears of maintenance and provide the accommodation as per the order. A sum of ₹12,000 accrued as arrears of maintenance and compensation of ₹10,000 also remained payable. The complainant requested the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance and compensation amount, but the petitioner failed to pay the same. Hence, it was prayed that the action be taken against the petitioner. The learned Trial Court passed an order on 30th December 2017, sending the application to the Station House Officer (SHO) Police Station, Manali under Section 156 (3) of CrPC. A direction was also issued to the SHO to submit the status report.

Being aggrieved from the direction issued by the learned Magistrate and the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR. It has been

asserted that the petitioner married the complainant on 20th January 2014. Differences arose between the parties, and the complainant filed a false case under section 12 of the DV Act. The learned Trial Court passed an order of payment of ₹10,000 as compensation, maintenance of ₹4000 per month as monetary relief, and accommodation. The complainant filed an application before the learned Trial Court, asserting that the petitioner had not complied with the order passed by it. The learned Trial Court sent the application to the police with a direction to register the FIR under Section 31 of the DV Act. Maintenance, compensation, and residence orders do not fall within the definition of a protection order, and only the violation of a protection order is punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

The petition is opposed by filing a reply, making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability, and the petitioner not having come to the Court with clean hands. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the learned Trial Court had passed a protection order restraining the petitioner from committing any act of cruelty or domestic violence upon the complainant. The petitioner was also directed to provide accommodation to the

complainant, pay a compensation of ₹10,000, and maintenance at the rate of ₹4000 per month. The petitioner failed to comply with the order of the learned Trial Court, and the learned Trial Court directed the police to register the FIR. The police registered the FIR and conducted the Investigation. Police found violation of Section 31 of the DV Act and submitted a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court.

I have heard M/s Aparajita, and Mr Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General for respondents 1 to 3/State

Ms Aparajita learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in sending the application to the police for the registration of the FIR, the violation of the monetary order does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act and only a protection order can be punished under section 31 of the DV Act; therefore, she prayed that the present petit