In this order from AP High Court, it was held that, a High Court cannot compound a non-compoundable case under section 482 CrPC.
Citation : 1995 (2) ALT Cri 447, 1995 CriLJ 3964, I (1996) DMC 239
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/228972/
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Interim Stay is granted on DVC Proceedings in this case by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Highlight of the case: 19 Respondents are arrayed as accused!!!
Here is the status of this case, as on the date of this posting.
This is a writ petition filed with Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in which this judgment is issued under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The self-acquired property of son was ordered to be transferred to his mother by Tribunal. But then in this judgment, Hon’ble High Court held that the fact remains that no transfer of property in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.3, and that too after commencement of the Act, has taken place. As such, no return of transfer of property is made out.
In this judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that “the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions” in the petitions contesting the maintainability of 482 CrPC quash in DV Cases.
See Page 5, last para…
Needless to say if any appeal is filed by any of the petitioners herein, they can file for the period beyond one month with application invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the learned Sessions Judge to entertain as it is of bonafide prosecution in this Court instead of proceeding by appeal before the Court of Sessions, within the sweep of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Further, if any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions.
Citations: [2015 SCC ONLINE HYD 293], [2016 CCC 1 49], [2015 ALD CRI 2 764]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110893807/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e53212e46571b56b1ea70aa
http://document.manupatra.com/ap/2001-2004/ap2015/AP20151408152002271.htm
The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
In this well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that in addition to the approach courts should take while considering whether the main Act as well as its amendment are prospective or retrospective in effect.
FACTS:
The petitioners filed a petition on 16.12.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class against the respondents (her husband and in-laws), under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to grant certain reliefs as mentioned therein, which was taken on file as D.V.C. NO.163 of 2008. The petitioners also filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the same was taken on file as D.V.C. No.10 of 2009.
Criminal Petition No.346 of 2009 is filed to quash all further proceedings in D.V.C. No.163 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, whereas, Criminal Petition No.7978 of 2009 is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.10 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur district.
ISSUES:
Whether the Quash petition is liable to be dismissed? Whether the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation?
DECISION:
It was held that the intention of the legislation is to provide certain remedies to the victims of domestic violence and also to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society.
Therefore, the acts of violence occurred prior to 25.10.2006 would come within the meaning of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation. It was thus held that there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings and both the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
From para 22,
If a statute does not provide an offender liable to any penalty (conviction or sentence) in favour of the state, it can be said that legislation will be classified as remedial statute. Remedial statutes are known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations. A remedial statute receives a liberal construction. In case of remedial statutes, doubt is resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted. Whenever a legislation prescribes a duty or penalty for breach of it, it must be understood that the duty is prescribed in the interest of the community or some part of it and the penalties prescribed as a sanction for its purpose. None of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has direct penal consequences.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Key Contributor:
A landmark quash judgment by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which laid down few criteria only under which DVC quash under CrPC 482 is maintainable.
From Para 13,
The next aspect is having regard to the fact that the reliefs provided under Section 18 to 22 are civil reliefs and enquiry under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act is not a trial of a criminal case, whether the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and thereby continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court etc., pleas. In my considered view, having regard to the facts that the scheme of the Act which provide civil reliefs and the Magistrate can lay his own procedure by not taking coercive steps in general course and the enquiry being not the trial of a criminal offence, the respondents cannot rush with 482 Cr.P.C petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in. They can establish their non involvement in the matter and non-answerability to the reliefs claimed by participating in the enquiry. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.
From Para 14,
14) To sum up the findings:
i) Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.
Citations: 2015 ALD CRL AP 2 470
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71870497/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8dce4b01497111438bd
This decision (with respect to shared householding requirement in DV cases) seems to be overruled by Supreme Court here. This judgment was not considered in the SC judgment.
Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.
This is the earlier false 498A case that was quashed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Subsequent DVC is available here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1374 access attempts in the last 7 days.
