Petition U/S 482 CrPC Not Maintainable For Challenging Proceedings U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has said that a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act) is not maintainable. A bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla held thus, heavily relying upon the rulings of the Supreme Court (in Kamatchi vs Laxmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370) and the Madras High Court (in Arul Daniel...
The Allahabad High Court has said that a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act) is not maintainable.
A bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla held thus, heavily relying upon the rulings of the Supreme Court (in Kamatchi vs Laxmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370) and the Madras High Court (in Arul Daniel vs Suganya and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467).
The court concluded thus while dealing with a dismissing a plea moved by one Suman Mishra challenging an order (of April 2012) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki as well as the order (of September 2013) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Barabanki in connection with a criminal complaint lodged by her sister-in-law (complainant/opposite party no. 2) under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The case in brief
It was the case of the complainant that after her marriage in February 2007, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law (applicant herein) and other opposite parties started torturing her by insulting and harassing her in various ways.
In April 2011, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the registration of a complaint and ordered the Protection Officer to submit a domestic incident report. The Protection Officer conducted a preliminary inquiry and issued a notice to the applicant to submit her reply.
Instead of participating in the court proceedings, the applicant sought to quash the proceedings and remove her name as opposite party No. 7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected her application in April 2012.
In September 2013, the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) also rejected her criminal revision plea, affirming the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order. Thereafter, she moved to the High Court.
At the outset, the Counsel for the complainants/opposite parties no. 2 and 3 questioned the maintainability of the application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash DV Act proceedings.
High Court's observations
Addressing the objection related to the maintainability of the application filed under Section 482 CrPC, the Single Judge observed that a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the Arul Daniel case (supra), while relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the Kamatchi case (supra), had held that the proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the proceeding under Section 12 of the DV Act is not maintainable.
The Court specifically referred to the Top Court's observations in the case of Kamatchi, in which it opined that an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence (D.V.) Act differs from lodging a complaint or initiating prosecution under the CrPC.
The Apex Court had clarified that the decision in Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors 2024 does not support invoking Section 482 CrPC in D.V. Act proceedings when a notice is issued under Section 12.
The Top Court had observed that Adalat Prasad's case applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Section 190 (1) (a) of the CrPC and issues process, not when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the DV Act. Thus, taking cognizance and proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are to be treated differently.
The High Court further opined that the provisions of Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to short-circuit proceedings under the DV Act and emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC should be used sparingly and only in the rarest of cases.
The court further stated that it would not assess the reliability of the allegations at this stage, as the trial court should address the claims of non-provision of protection, residence, and compensation.
In view of this, the Court noted that the instant case did not meet the criteria for invoking Section 482 CrPC, and the applicant failed to persuade the court to rule in her Favor. Against the backdrop of these observations, the Court dismissed the petition.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Shishir Pradhan
Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate, Ashok Kr. Verma
Case title - Suman Mishra vs. The State Of U.P And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Case title - 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481