A Presiding officer in Telangana went into merits of a petition (which was seeking permanent injunction over a suit scheduled property) and rejected it, even before it was numbered!!! A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court sent the PO to training in Judicial Academy…
Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020An earlier instance, just about a month back!!!
Nanavath Raj Kumar Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 04 Nov 2020
Disagreeing with a catena of judgements here, here, here, here, Single-bench of High Court of Meghalaya relied upon this landmark decision from Supreme Court here and held that a false DV case can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC.
From Paras 33, 34 and 33,
33. The argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in the opinion of this Court are valid as regard the nature and relief contemplated under the DV Act 2005, particularly those seen in Sections 18 to 22 which are civil in nature and can be sought for before any civil court, family court or a criminal court as provided under Section 26 of the said DV Act. However, the learned counsel has failed to notice that in Section 26 of the DV Act, the aggrieved person apart from a civil court or a family court, can seek the reliefs stated above even from a criminal court and in doing so, the aggrieved person would subject herself to the jurisdiction of a criminal court following the procedure of the Criminal Procedure Code.
34. In fact, Section 28 of the DV Act 2005 specifically provides that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 as well as Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though liberty was also given to the court to lay down its own procedure.
35. The applicability of the said provision of Section 28 of the said DV Act in criminal proceedings was emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) at paragraphs 138 and 139 where it has restated that the procedure to be followed shall be under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
From Paras 38, 39
Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 202138. It is also a fact that Section 482 Cr.P.C provides for inherent power on the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code and as stated above, proceedings under the DV Act being governed by the procedure under the Cr.P.C, therefore the logical conclusion would be that an application under Section 482 is maintainable qua order passed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the DV Act.
39. With due respect, the decisions of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court cited above and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No 2, as far as the procedural aspects under the DV Act is concerned, would not stand the test in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra).
This case was decided by a single-judge bench and key points are highlighted below. This case law was cited here.
V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009
Citations : [2010 AIR KER NOC 415], [2010 ILR KER 1 60], [2010 CRLJ NOC 549], [2010 RCR CIVIL 6 1046], [2010 KERLT 1 79], [2009 SCC ONLINE KER 6448], [2010 AIC 87 367], [2010 KLT 1 79]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40197/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cef607dba348ffefb96
http://document.manupatra.com/kerala/2001-2003/ke2009/K090810.htm
A single-judge bench of Kerala High Court, while denying to invoke 482 CrPC to quash a DV case based on the landmark judgment here, held as follows. But Supreme Court had taken a different view in the landmark judgment here just a month later.
From Para 8,
8. The Act is a welfare legislation enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women from domestic violence. The proceedings under the Act are, therefore, essentially civil in nature except in so far as it relate to Section 31 dealing with the breach of protection order issued under the Act
and Section 33 dealing with failure or refusal by Protection Offices in discharging their duties in terms of the orders issued by the Court. As such, in Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu, 2010 (1) KLT 79, this Court held that a party against whom a proceedings is initiated under Section 12 of the Act cannot approach this court for quashing the proceedings, invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, and that the power of this Court under Section 482 can be exercised only in appropriate cases either to give effect to any order passed under the Act or to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, when cognizance is taken by the Magistrate for an offence under subsection (1) of Section 31 or Section 33 of the Act.…
As evident from the extracted paragraphs of the judgement, this Court has held in the said case that a person to whom notice is issued by the Magistrate in an application under Section 12 of the Act can appear before the Magistrate and contend that the proceedings is not maintainable against him, on the ground either that the person who filed the application is not an ‘aggrieved person’ as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act, or that he would not fall within the definition of the ‘respondent’ in Section 2(q) of the Act, or that the allegations do not make out a case of ‘domestic violence’ as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act or that the reliefs sought are not reliefs provided for in the Act. It was also held by this Court in the said case that such contentions as regards the maintainability of the application, if raised, shall be decided by the Magistrate. It was further held by this Court in the said case that so long as the respondent is not an accused in a proceedings initiated under the Act, he is not even obliged to apply for bail in respect of such proceedings and his personal presence is not mandatory for hearing and disposing of an application under Section 12. In the light of the decision of this Court in Vijayalekshmi, according to me, the Criminal M.C. is not maintainable.
Misuse of Social Welfare (Gender-biased) Laws in India:
From Para 9,
Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 20209. Despite the findings aforesaid, it is necessary to mention that in so far as the proceedings under the Act are to be dealt with by criminal courts in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code, it has become a common practice now to rope in the relatives, at times even distant relatives of the person from whom relief is essentially intended, as respondents in the applications instituted under the Act without any bonafides and with oblique motives, on omnibus and vague allegations, despite various judgements of the Apex Court deprecating that practice. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Apex Court has taken note of the said fact and observed that majority of such complaints are filed either on the advice of the lawyers or with their concurrence. Be that as it may. It is also observed that notice is invariably issued to all the respondents in such applications without application of mind as to whether the aggrieved person has made out a case of domestic violence against all of them, as a result of which, it is noticed that some of the proceedings under the Act, where parties are arrayed as respondents without making out a case of domestic violence against them, have become a tool of harassment at the hands of the aggrieved persons to obtain reliefs which they are not entitled to. The statute being a remedial one to protect the women from domestic violence, it has to be enforced having regard to the realities of life. As such, even while taking all endeavours possible to protect the aggrieved persons from domestic violence, the courts have to be extremely cautious and careful to ensure that its powers are not being abused. One of the important steps to be taken towards that direction is to scrutinize the applications meticulously and satisfy that a case of domestic violence as defined in the Act is made out against all the respondents and no one is arrayed as a party to the proceedings on omnibus and vague allegations, so that the court can refrain from issuing notice to them. The provisions in the statute especially Section 28, conferring power on the Magistrate to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under subsection (2) of Section 23 would indicate that the scheme of the statute is that the approach of the courts shall be to enforce the provisions of the Act, keeping in mind the fact that the parties who are close relatives in most of the cases, would at some point of time reconcile their differences and lead a life in harmony and the opportunity for the parties to bring about a settlement of their differences is not lost on account of the steps taken in the proceedings. If proceedings under the Act are permitted to be used as tools of harassment, I have no doubt that the possibility of the parties settling their disputes amicably and leading a life in harmony would be bleak.
Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE KER 4238]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126633191/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f80abd89fca190ae54bcb50
Supreme Court very clearly said a staff on Administration on Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions.
From Paras 9 and 10,
P.Surendran Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 29 March 20199. The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the rules of reason and justice. A Constitution Bench of five judges in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs. Lakshmichand and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 677, formulated the following criteria to ascertain whether a decision or or an act is judicial function or not, in the following manner
(1) it is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the application of objective standards to facts found in the light of preexisting legal rule;
(2) it declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting their civil rights; and
(3) that the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating an opportunity of presenting its case to a party, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence if a dispute be on questions of fact, and if the dispute be on question of law on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact.
(emphasis added)
The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indicates
at application of judicial mind. In this context, we accept the statement of the Attorney General, that the determination in this case is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not have rejected the numbering.10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench.
Citations: [2019 (2) Crimes 321], [2019 (2) JLJR 279], [2019 (2) KLJ 955], [2019 (2) PLJR 291], [2019 (2) RCR (Civil) 767], [2019 (2) RCR (Criminal) 767], [2019 (6) Scale 465], [2019 All.M.R.(Cri.) 3493], [(2019) 9 SCC 154], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 507]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85097973/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ca8c17e9eff430a58956741
https://www.vakilno1.com/supreme-court-of-india/high-court-registry-cannot-question-maintainability-of-petition-supreme-court.html
Supreme Court held that undecided divorce case does not affect the maintainability of a DV case.
Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016Citations: []
Other Source links:
The index page is here.
In this Supreme Court judgment, it was held that
From Para 31, “An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the Respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief Under Section 20, Child Custody Under Section 21, Compensation Under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order Under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.“.
Lesson Learnt:
Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs Atif Iqbal Mansoori on 18 September, 2014Once an act of domestic violence is done, later on divorce happens, the woman can file DV case even after getting divorce, for the dv acts committed while the marriage was in vogue.
The key contention resolved in this judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court is that “whether the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings being Crime No.54 of 2005 on the grounds that the appellant had withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons; the transactions being commercial in nature, the ingredients of an offence under the Sections referred to above were absent; and that the remedy of the appellant lay in filing a civil suit.”
From Para 22,
There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute which debars a complainant from making a second complaint on the same allegations, when the first complaint did not lead to conviction, acquittal or discharge.
From Para 23,
when a complaint is dismissed on merits after an inquiry, that a second complaint cannot be made on the same facts. Maybe, as contended by the respondents, the first complaint was withdrawn without assigning any reason. However, that in itself is no ground to quash a second complaint.
This legal principle is called as protection from Double Jeopardy as enshrined in Article 20(2) of Constitution of India as well as 300 CrPC.
V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018
Landmark judgment cited in this judgment is available here.
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,
Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State Of Telangana on 16 February, 201514) 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.
In this landmark case, Supreme Court clarified the position on whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”
Trivia: The victim Lalita Kumari is recovered here.
Conclusion/Directions:
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
Lalita Kumari Vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
Citation: [(2014) 2 SCC 1], [2014 JCC SC 1 1], [2013 SCALE 13 559], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 979], [2014 AIR SC 187], [2013 JT 14 399], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 243], [2013 AIOL 744], [2013 SLT 9 1], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 680], [2013 SUPREME 8 1], [2014 CRIMES SC 4 488], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4444], [2013 AIR SC 6386], [2014 SCC CRI 1 524], [2014 SCC 2 1], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 999], [2013 CTC 6 353], [2013 KERLT 4 632], [2014 CRILJ 470], [2014 AIC 134 155], [2013 KLJ 4 686], [2014 ECRN 1 180], [2014 KCCR 2 1305], [2014 CHN 2 7], [2013 PLJR 4 504], [2014 GLT SC 2 1], [2013 KHC 4 552], [2014 NCC 1 161], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 100], [2014 ALLCC 84 719], [2014 SCJ 1 68], [2014 GLD SC 2 355], [2013 JLJR 4 505], [2013 UC 3 2017], [2013 MPHT SC 5 336], [2013 AD SC 12 209], [2014 OLR 1 5], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 159], [2013 MLJ CRI 4 579], [2014 LW CRL 1 1], [2014 CHN SC 2 7], [2014 OLR SC 1 5], [2013 KLT SC 4 632], [2013 ALLMR CRI 4444], [2013 KLT 4 632], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 579], [2013 BOMCR CRI 4 680], [2014 CRI LJ 470], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 4 979], [2013 JT SC 14 399], [2013 AIR SCW 6386]
Other links :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10239019/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af33e4b0149711415cb3
The 8th Direction in above judgment is modified as follows:
Lalita Kumari Vs Govt of U.P. and Ors on 05 Mar 2014Bad Behavior has blocked 2198 access attempts in the last 7 days.
