PWDV Act is subject to CrPC 468, so complaint filed after 1 year are time barred, hence the DVC is quashed by Madras High Court.
N. Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 July 2020The Landmark judgment is here.
Tag: PWDV Act – DV Case Quashed
Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020
Justice R.Banumathi has delivered this wonderful judgment in a false DV Case, holding that,
Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 20209. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is the husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives of appellants No.3, 5 and 9 respectively. Appellants No.7 and 8 are the parents of appellant No.1. Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthan and appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are averments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other appellants No.3 to 13. Since there are no specific allegations against appellants No.3 to 13, the criminal case of domestic violence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed.
The Lower High Court judgment in the DV Case is here that got quashed in Supreme Court.
The liar filed a false 498A IPC case also on all 14 accused. Except husband and In-laws, the false case on all 11 others got quashed at Karnataka High Court here.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41851528/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013
Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that, the cunning respondent levelled similar allegations in FIR under Section 498-A IPC were duly inquired by the police and it was found that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were innocent. So the DV case on both the parents was quashed.
Sachin Sharma and Ors Vs Radhika Sharma on 06 February 2013Citations: [2013 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 817],
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83272752/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56099c51e4b01497113cd848
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
G.Ramesh Babu vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018
Another judgment from Madras High Court, wherein a false DV case on parents was quashed due to generic and non-specific allegation.
G.Ramesh Babu Vs Radhika on 19 December, 2018Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11203719/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015
Hon’ble High Court of Patna has quashed the false DV case of the cunning grand-daughter, holding that there is no domestic relationship as there is no shared household between them.
Aditi was just 17 years old when she filed the complaint. The complaint had been filed through her father Arun Garg being the natural guardian.
Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015
Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016
In this judgment, Punjab & Haryana HC held that “Complaint under DV Act not maintainable after divorce”.
Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016Citations: [
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013
Nice judgment from Apex Court in quashing the false DVC on relatives of husband.
Ashish Dixit & Ors Vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 7 January, 2013Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1077], [2013 ALJ 2 231], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 626], [2013 CRI LJ 1178], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 216], [2013 KHC 1 358], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 410], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 340], [2013 SCC 4 176], [2013 AIR SC 776], [2013 CRLJ 1178], [[2013 CCR 1 452], [2013 SLT 1 545], [2013 SCC CR 2 337], [2013 BCR CRI 1 626], [2013 RAJ 2 318], [2013 RCR CRI 2 340], [2013 AICLR 1 713], [2013 ALLLJ 2 231], [2013 HINDULR 1 192]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bbc
The index page is here.
P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015
This is a quash judgment from Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the DVC on relatives of husband are quashed on grounds that there is ‘no shared household’ and ‘no domestic relationship’ conditions.
P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 20155. ( i) Coming back to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners had any domestic relationship and lived together with the 2nd respondent in a shared household at any point of time. Further after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent.
6 . Viewed thus, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196776515/
Citation:
Earlier 498a case that was quashed is available here.
The index page is here.
Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018
Two questions of interpretation of law in regards to the DV Act are explained in this landmark Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Q1. Whether or not the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2008 are in the nature of criminal proceedings ?
Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are predominantly of civil nature and it is only when there is a breach of the protection order as is contemplated under Section 31 and failure or refusal to discharge duty without any sufficient cause by the protection officer as contemplated under Section 33, the proceedings assume the character of criminality. The first question is answered accordingly.
Q2. Whether or not the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ?
the second question is answered in the affirmative.
Now, one incidental question would arise as to from what stage the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would become applicable and in our view, the answer could be found out from the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the D.V. Act.
A combined reading of these provisions shows that the commencement of the proceedings would take place the moment, the Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of the application and passes any judicial order including that of issuance of notice. Once, the proceeding commences, the procedure under Section 28 of the D.V. Act, subject to the exceptions provided in the Act and the rules framed thereunder, would apply. In other words, save as otherwise provided in the D.V. Act and the rules framed thereunder and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 28, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall govern the proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 and also those relating to an offence under Section 31 of the D.V. Act on their commencement.
Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018
Markapuram Siva Rao and Ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013
Important Quash Judgment for Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
All 6 (out of total 7 respondents) in this DVC are freed by quashing the DVC proceedings initiated on them as the allegations are replica of those made in IPC 498A Case and moreover the allegations are vague and general in nature.
Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013Observation by Hon’ble Judge:
The allegations made in the said report are verbatim identical with the report lodged with the Project Officer. It appears that a report was prepared and copies of which were sent to police station and Project Officer.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160109228/
The index page is here.
