Delhi District Court
Jai Singh Chauhan vs Hemlata on 28 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE06:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 283/2017
1. Jai Singh Chauhan,
S/o Sh. Jagrup Chauhan,
2. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Jai Singh Chauhan,
Both R/o H. No. 1874A,
Sector29, Faridabad,
Haryana . . . . . . . . . . Appellants
Versus
Hemlata
W/o Sh. Pramod
D/o Sh. Mukesh Raghav
r/o 708/15, Lakhpat Colony,
Meethapur Extn.,
Badarpur, New Delhi44 . . . . . . . Respondent
Reserved on: 16.02.2018 Pronounced on: 28.02.2018 CA No. 283/2017 Jai Singh Chauhan & Anr. v. Hemlata 1 JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the present appeal filed under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as DV Act) against the impugned order dated14.07.2017 passed in CC no. 617903/17 titled "Hemlata vs. Jai Singh Chauhan and others ".
2. The complainant, Hemlata, has filed applications under section 12 and 23 of DV Act before learned trial court in CC no. 617903/17 against the appellants herein as well as against two other persons i.e. her motherinlaw and her husband. The appellants had filed an application before learned trial court under section 25 of DV Act praying for deleting their names/discharging appellants from CC no. 617903/17 and vide the impugned order, learned trial court has dismissed the said application.
3. The appellant has submitted that they had sought discharge in view of order dated 16.12.2014 of learned Mahila Court wherein she has discharged the appellants in FIR no. 12/2013.
4. The appellants have submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside as learned trial court has failed to appreciate the ground stated in the application under section 25 of DV Act by observing in the impugned order that the criminal case is different than quasi civil case i.e. filed under DV Act and thus has failed to consider the contents of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.
CA No. 283/2017 Jai Singh Chauhan & Anr. v. Hemlata 2
5. The appellants have also contended that learned MM has no right to violate the provisions of article 14 of Constitution of India if it amounts to abuse of the process of law by learned MM. It has also been submitted that learned MM has power under section 57 of Evidence Act to take judicial notice of order dated 16.12.2014 to discharge/delete the names of the appellants from the CC no. 617903/17.
6. The appellants have submitted that they are father and brother of husband of respondent and are victims of circumstances, who have no role directly or indirectly to any ill will with the respondent whereas in the contents of CC no. 617903/17, the respondent has specifically submitted that her husband is of unsound mind and she had specifically stated in the FIR no. 12/2013 in proceedings initiated before CAW Cell that she is not willing to reside with her husband.
7. The appellant has relied upon law laid down in Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Others, 2015 (3) JCC 1719 wherein it has been observed in para 16 to 18 that no person has right to abuse the process of law without any specific allegation. The appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for discharging them from CC no. 617903/17. The appeal has been strongly opposed by the respondent and it has been submitted on her behalf that there are specific allegations against the 2 appellants and that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
8. Section 25 of DV Act reads as:
(1) A protection order made under section 18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge.
CA No. 283/2017 Jai Singh Chauhan & Anr. v. Hemlata 3 (2) If the Magistrate, on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such order, as he may deem appropriate.
9. The impugned order has been perused. An appropriate order can be passed on an application under section 25 of DV Act when filed by the aggrieved person or the respondent, when there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act. However order dated 16.12.2014 of learned Mahila Court wherein she has discharged the appellants in FIR no. 12/2013 has been passed in respect of the cruelty covered under section 498 A of IPC. Learned trial court has rightly observed that domestic violence' covers "physical abuse", " sexual abuse", "verbal abuse" and "economic abuse". Therefore the purview of DV Act is broader than the "cruelty" covered under section 498 A of IPC. I also concur with observations of learned trial court that the yardstick of proof in a criminal case is different than that in a quasi civil (it should have been quasicriminal) case and accordingly she dismissed the application filed by the appellants under section 25 of DV Act. The said order and observation of learned Mahila Court is not binding on the Learned trial court and does not fall under the expression "change in the circumstances" as contemplated by section 25 of DV Act.
10. Thus, none of the grounds taken by the appellants is sustainable. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
12. Copy of the judgment along with trial court record be sent back to learned trial court.
CA No. 283/2017 Jai Singh Chauhan & Anr. v. Hemlata 4
13. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) 28.02.2018 Additional Sessions Judge06, South East,Saket Courts, New Delhi/28.02.2018 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2018.02.28 20:07:40 +0530 CA No. 283/2017 Jai Singh Chauhan & Anr. v. Hemlata 5