Karnataka High Court
A Sathish Amal Raj vs Smt Pavitra Celus L on 6 March, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 3026 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3026 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. A. SATHISH AMAL RAJ,
S/O LATE AROCKIA SAMY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
NO 8A, RAGHAVENDHRA NAGAR,
THIRUNINDRAVUR RCS, AVADI,
THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU - 602 024.
2. MRS. MARTHA AROCKIA SAMY,
W/O LATE AROCKIA SAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NO.8A, RAGHAVENDHRA NAGAR,
THIRUNINDRAVUR RCS, AVADI,
THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU - 602 024.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally (BY SRI. PRABHAKARAIAH N.V, ADVOCATE)
signed by
SUMA
AND:
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT. PAVITRA CELUS.L,
KARNATAKA W/O MR.A SATHISH AMAL RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
2. KUM. JOHANNA KRISTALL S,
D/O A SATHISH AMAL RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 1 YEAR, MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN.
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT, NO 3, MUNIYAPPA GARDEN,
2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE,
-2-
CRL.P No. 3026 of 2019
KRSIHNARAJAPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 IS MINOR
REPRESNTED BY R-1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.252/2018 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in C.Misc.No.252/2018 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (Henceforth referred to be as 'Trial Court'), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. The respondents are the wife and daughter of the petitioner herein. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (henceforth, referred to an Act of 2005) seeking an order of protection under section 18 of the Act of 2005. They also sought for interim relief under Section -3- CRL.P No. 3026 of 2019 23 of the Act of 2005, claiming maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month.
3. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C, contending that the petition is not maintainable, as it is filed after a long delay and that too after the period of limitation prescribed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing all further proceedings in C.Misc.No.252/2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 31 of the Act of 2005, a breach of a protection order or an order of interim protection is an offence under the Act of 2005 and the same is punishable with imprisonment of either discretion of a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.20,000/- or with both. He submits that, since the allegations made by the respondents in the proceeding relates to the year 2016-2017, the petition filed on 19.11.2018 was beyond one year, which is the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 31 of the Act of 2005. He -4- CRL.P No. 3026 of 2019 therefore submits that all the proceedings before the Trial Court are liable to be terminated.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petition before the Trial Court was not filed to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 31 of the Act of 2005. He submits that the Court is yet to pass an order under Section 18 and therefore, an offence is not yet committed and therefore, the petitioner cannot invoke Section 468 of Cr.P.C to shoot down the litigation.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the proceedings from which the present petition arises, relates to a claim for a Protection under Order 18 of the Act of 2005 and for other interlocutory orders under Section 23 of the Act of 2005. The Trial Court is yet to pass an order on the petitioner. It is -5- CRL.P No. 3026 of 2019 therefore evident that an offence under Section 31 of the Act of 2005 is not committed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot assail the legality of the proceedings on the touchstone of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court is entitled to adjudicate the claim made by the respondents in accordance with law.
There is no apparent error in the Trial Court entertaining the proceedings initiated by the respondents, warranting interference by this court.
Hence, the petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30