Sessions Court Not Empowered To Quash Entire Proceedings U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act, Party Must Approach High Court: Karnataka HC
Mustafa Plumber
1 July 2024 9:39 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court has held that a petition calling in question the entire proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be maintainable before the High Court, not the Sessions Court.
However, if any particular order is passed on any application filed under Sections 18, 19, 20 or 22 of the Act, those specific orders are to be agitated before the Court of Sessions invoking Section 29 of the Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by A Ramesh Babu and others. It quashed a complaint filed by their daughter in-law alleging that the husband and the in-laws meted out torture upon her.
The complainant after seven months of marriage had lodged the complaint before the magistrate court under Section 12 of the Act, seeking several reliefs including the protection order for residence and maintenance from the hands of the husband. The petitioners were arrayed as accused in the case, alleging that they also instigated the husband in meting out such torture upon his wife.
The complainant opposed the quashing petition saying that an appeal should be preferred before the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the Act and invoking High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is, on the face of it, erroneous.
The bench noted that as per Section 29, an appeal to the Court of Sessions lie within 30 days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served upon the aggrieved person. Therefore, Section 29 permits an appeal against any order that is passed, on a bare reading of the provision.
"Setting aside the entire proceedings is not the power that is vested in the Court of Sessions on an appeal under Section 29 of the Act. It is the inherent power that is conferred upon this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to consider these grievances,” it added.
The Court placed reliance on full bench order of the Bombay High Court in Nandkishor Prahlad Vyawahare v. Mangala (2018) wherein it was held that there is no efficacious remedy available under the Act for quashment of proceeding on account of it becoming an abuse of the process of law.
The bench held,
“A petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. calling in question the entire proceedings before the concerned Court initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be maintainable, only if the proceedings are challenged on the ground of abuse of the process of the law, as the Court of Session is not empowered to obliterate the proceedings holding it to be an abuse of the process of the law.”
It added “Any specific order passed by the concerned Court answering applications filed under Sections 18, 19, 20 or 22 of the Act or any other interlocutory order would not be entertainable before this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The aggrieved, by any order, has to prefer an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, as it is an alternative and statutory remedy available.”
Coming to merits of the case, Court said it has become a norm these days to rope in other members of the family in proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC or Section 12 of the DV Act, while the entire grievance is against the husband. “This in no manner would bring about any ingredients of what would mean 'domestic violence' as found in Section 3 of the Act.”
Accordingly, it allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings qua petitioners.
Appearance: Advocate Amar Correa for Petitioners
Advocate T.Prakash for Respondents
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Case Title: A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3578 OF 2022
