Karnataka High Court
Duragappa S/O.Kenchappa Hadimani vs Suvarna W/O. Durgappa Hadimani on 1 September, 2014
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1 s t DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100242/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI.DURAGAPPA
S/O.KENCHAPPA HADIMANI
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
R/O. BHEEMARAYANAGUNDI VILLAGE
SHAHAPUR TALUKA
DIST: YADAGIRI
2. SMT.SEETAVVA
W/O. KENCHAPPA HADIMANI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KATAGERI VILLAGE,
BADAMI TALUKA
DIST: BAGALKOT
3. SHRI.DHARMAPPA
S/O. RANGAPPA HADIMANI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KATAGERI VILLAGE,
BADAMI TALUKA
DIST: BAGALKOT
... PETITIONERS
2
(BY SRI. D. B. KARIGAR, ADV.)
AND:
SMT.SUVARNA
W/O. DURGAPPA HADIMANI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O. L. SHIVAPUR CHAVANI ONI
HOSAYALLAPUR, DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADV.)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE
FALSE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT &
THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE
COMPLAINT/PETITION BY ISSUE OF SUMMONS,
WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) & CJM, DHARWAD, VIDE ANNEUXRE-F & L,
IN ITS CRL.MISC.NO.7/2013.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent-complainant has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Dharwad against the 3 petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.7/2013. The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the orders dated 23/25.05.2013 passed by the learned I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Dharwad taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing process against the petitioners.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners challenged the proceedings pending before the Court below on the ground that, notification, as required under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, has not been issued and a competent Court has not been constituted. The competent Court for the purpose of Section 27 of the Act is the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be. The case filed by the respondent is before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM 4 Court, which is a Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel referred to the notification issued from the office of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad on 20.09.2002, under which the Chief Judicial Magistrate is designated as the Judicial Magistrate First Class. However, the said notification was issued prior to the Domestic Violence Act came into existence.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that by notification Chief Judicial Magistrate is designated as Judicial Magistrate First Class in view of Section 12 of the Cr.P.C. Further he submits that as per Section 28 of the Domestic Violence Act it saves the procedure and proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 5 21, 22, 23 of the Act; and offences under Section 31 governed under the provisions of Cr.P.C. In view of the said provision, there is no necessity for issuing a notification for the purpose of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. Further it is submitted that with regard to maintainability, the petitioner has made application and objection has been filed by the respondent and now it is posted for orders.
4. Whether notification is required for the purpose of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act or is it Section 28 of the Act read with Section 12 of the Cr.P.C? Whether it is in compliance or not against which necessary applications have been filed which have been heard and posted for orders. When such applications are pending for necessary orders, it is not proper for the parties to prefer this 6 petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking for the same relief. It is impermissible to initiate dual proceedings for the similar prayer when an application questioning the jurisdiction is set down for orders. It is for the petitioner to question if it goes against him. Reserving the said liberty this petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to place this order before the learned Judge for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE gab/-