In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not maintainable to challenge proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Background:
The case arose from a complaint filed by Smt. Parul Mishra under Section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws, including her sister-in-law Smt. Suman Mishra (the applicant). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, directed the registration of the complaint and sought a report from the Protection Officer. Instead of responding to the Protection Officer’s notice, Smt. Suman Mishra filed an application to quash the proceedings against her, which was rejected by both the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge on appeal.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Maintainability of an application under Section 482 CrPC to challenge proceedings under the DV Act
2. Distinction between proceedings under the DV Act and regular criminal proceedings
3. Applicability of the Cr.P.C. to proceedings under the DV Act
Court’s Decision and Observations:
The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC, holding it not maintainable to challenge proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act. The court made several important observations:
1. On the nature of DV Act proceedings:
The court, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kamatchi v. Laxmi Narayanan (2022), observed: “It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution.”
2. On the distinction from regular criminal proceedings:
The court noted: “The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued. Thus, the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in Adalat Prasad would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act.”
3. On the applicability of CrPC:
While acknowledging that Section 28 of the DV Act makes certain provisions of the CrPC applicable, the court highlighted that Section 28(2) empowers the court to lay down its own procedure for disposing of applications under Sections 12 or 23(2) of the DV Act.
4. On the available remedies:
The court pointed out that an appeal against the Magistrate’s order lies with the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the DV Act, and a revision petition to the High Court is maintainable against the Sessions Court’s order.
Conclusion:
Justice Om Prakash Shukla concluded: “Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble Madras High Court, this Court is of the considered view that the application made under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable.”
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 6975 of 2013
– Bench: Justice Om Prakash Shukla
– Applicant: Smt. Suman Mishra
– Opposite Parties: The State of U.P. and Others
– Lawyers:
– For Applicant: Shishir Pradhan
– For Opposite Party: Govt. Advocate, Ashok Kr. Verma
