Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Pinki Paul And Anr on 28 February, 2023
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010032192023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./184/2023
JULU PAUL AND 3 ORS.
S/O LATE ANNADA PAUL,
2: BINA PAUL
W/O LATE ANNADA PAUL
3: KULON PAUL
S/O LATE ANNADA PAUL
4: RAKHI PAUL
W/O LATE KULON PAUL
ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SARATPALLY
MAHADEV LANE
PIN- 788006
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
VERSUS
PINKI PAUL AND ANR.
W/O JULU PAUL AND D/O LATE DIJU ROY,
R/O C/O BAPPI ROY, JMC BUILDING, NEAR AUTO STAND, OLD LAKHIPUR
ROAD, P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, DIST.-
HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE P.P.
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 28.02.2023 Heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned APP appearing for the State respondent no.2.
2. This criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing of the complaint filed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act for short), and order dated 17.08.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cachar in DV Case No. 169/2022, taking cognizance against the petitioners under section 12 of the DV Act.
3. Issue notice returnable on 24.03.2023.
4. Requisite extra copies of the writ petition be furnished to the learned APP in course of the day.
5. The petitioner no.1 shall take steps within 2 (two) days for service of notice on the respondent no.1 by registered post with A/D. In addition, the petitioner no.1 shall take usual steps, which the registry shall serve through the jurisdictional Magistrate as per the Gauhati High Court Rules with suitable modification to the form.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for interim relief.
7. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who has extensively referred to the complaint petition and it is submitted that the complaint case was filed after the petitioner no.1 had taken steps before the competent Court for reinstitution of conjugal life, and after Page No.# 3/3 filing of T.S. No. 189/2022, for which summons was served on the respondent no.1 on 16.06.2022. It is also submitted that the marriage took place in Imphal and as the respondent no.1 was not claiming any relief from the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4, they are not necessary party. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 is a counterblast of the proceedings instituted by the petitioner no.1.
8. In the DV Case, the respondent no.1 is seeking monetary relief. It is too well settled that the complaint under the DV Act is in addition to and is not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the prayer for quashing of the complaint in respect of the petitioner no.1 is rejected at the threshold without issuing notice on the respondents.
9. Insofar as petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4, namely, Smt. Bina Paul, Kulon Paul, and Smt. Rakhi Paul are concerned, as the claim in the complaint is with regard to relief within the meaning of section 18/20/22/23 of the DV Act, the Court is inclined to stay the proceedings of DV Case No. 169/2022, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cachar.
10. This order shall not be a bar for the learned trial Court to continue with the proceedings insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned.
11. List the matter on 24.03.2023.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant