Karnataka High Court
Sri K Manjunath Reddy vs Smt Latha A C on 1 August, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1726 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Sri. K. Manjunath Reddy,
Son of Sri. Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at Jigini,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District - 562 105.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri Srinivas A.R., Advocate)
AND:
Smt. Latha A.C.,
Wife of Sri. K. Manjunath Reddy,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at No.10,
1st Cross, Munireddy Layout,
Chikkalasandra,
Bangalore - 560 061.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri N. Sriram Reddy, Advocate)
*****
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the
order dated 18.4.2015 passed in Crl.Misc.No.144/2014 on the
file of VI - MMTC., at Bangalore and confirming order passed
in Crl.R.P.No.436/2015 on the file of the LXVII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH No.68)
vide order dated 4.11.2015.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The wife has instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Domestic Violence Act', for brevity). In the course of the proceedings, the court below had permitted the respondent to tender evidence by way of affidavit. The petitioner has strongly objected to the said procedure being adopted by the court below and has drawn attention to Rule 6(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 3 Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for brevity) and has also placed reliance on several decisions of the Madras High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Karnataka High Court as well, to contend that the procedure to be followed in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act shall be dealt with and the orders enforced in the same manner as laid down in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and this is evident from the express provision of Rule 6(5) of the Rules. Therefore, he contends that since the procedure prescribed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires that it shall be dealt with as a summons case and shall be recorded in the presence of the witnesses and the gist of the evidence shall be recorded by the Magistrate and signed by him, the question of filing an affidavit or receiving evidence by way of an affidavit, does not arise. However, Section 28(2) of the Domestic Violence Act also indicates that the procedure prescribed in respect of proceedings under Section 12 and or other sections mentioned therein shall be governed by the 4 provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973. In that, nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub- section (2) of section 23.
This would indicate that the concerned court is enabled to draw up its own procedure notwithstanding the requirement that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would apply. This in fact would also address the requirement under the rule which application under Section 12 shall be dealt with, disposed of as in the case of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. Having regard to the object and the scope of the legislation, the prescription of such enabling provision is obviously not to cramp the style of the court which requires to address issues with some expedition. Therefore, the section providing that the court can form its own procedure, would also over-ride sub-section (1) of Section 28 to rule 6(5) of the Rules as well.
5
4. There is no illegality, as the court in exercise of its inherent power while prescribing the procedure for disposal of the application, would even permit evidence by way of an affidavit in such cases. And where the deponent would be available for cross-examination to test the veracity of the evidence, there is no miscarriage of justice or other illegality in such a procedure being adopted.
5. The decision which was cited at the Bar namely the order in W.P.53863/2014 dated 27.02.2015 in the case of Shridhar Das vs. Smt. Nalinakshi rendered, is without reference to Section 28(2) of the Domestic Violence Act and therefore would stand distinguished.
The decision in the case of Madhusudan Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs. Mamta Bhardwaj 2009 Cri. L.J. 3095 is a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which does not bind this court and would be of a persuasive value. Hence, the same is not followed.
6
The decision in Smt. Sunanda vs. Bharat Naik ILR 2011 Kar 1040 was with reference to proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is wholly irrelevant.
Therefore, the present petition is misconceived and is rejected. The view taken by this court would also be relevant having regard to the circumstance of this case which has been hanging fire for the past two years in a matter which should have been summarily disposed of. Therefore, the court below is directed to expedite the proceedings and to deal mercilessly with any such applications filed by the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS