Telangana High Court
Gujjula Nadih Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9632 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No. 20 of 2021 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3. Petitioners herein are respondents in the said DVC.
2. Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Suresh Bhaktula, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Perusal of the record would reveal that second respondent had filed the said petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') seeking reliefs against the petitioners herein.
4. Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel would submit that in the complaint itself, the second respondent has mentioned the date of marriage as 30.03.2019 and date of separation as 20.03.2020 and she has filed the present petition on 09.08.2021. Therefore, the said 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.9632 of 2021 petition is barred by limitation. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein are parents of 1st petitioner since the 2nd respondent has not sought any specific relief against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the present petition is liable to be dismissed against them.
5. Whereas Sri Suresh Bhaktula, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. Respondent No.2 has sought certain reliefs against the petitioners herein in the said application filed under Section 12 of the Act. The present proceedings are maintainable and are not hit by Section 468 of Cr.PC. According to him, Section 468 of Cr.PC is no way applicable to the DVC proceedings. The said application is within the period of limitation. With the said submissions, the application is to be dismissed.
6. The above said facts would reveal that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them. The 2nd respondent has also lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Cr.No. 15 of 2021. The investigating 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.9632 of 2021 officer on completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein and the same was taken on file vide CC No. 300 of 2021 and the same is pending. The petitioners herein have filed the Crl.P. No. 5717 of 2021 challenging the proceedings in the above said C.C. and this Court has passed interim orders. Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner No.1 had filed a petition vide O.P. No. 1087 of 2021 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The said O.P. is also pending.
7. The 2nd respondent herein has filed an application vide DVC No.20 of 2021 against the petitioners herein seeking certain reliefs.
8. In view of the rival submissions, the first question that falls for consideration is, whether the proceedings under the DVC Act are bared by limitation under Section 468 Cr.PC or not ?.
9. When the said question fell for consideration before Madras High Court in a case reported V. Nagarajan and Others Vs. B.P. Thangaveni1 the Madras High Court held that Section 28 and 32 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 r/w Rule 15 (6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 11 2019 Crl.L.J. 3027 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.9632 of 2021 2006, make the provisions of Cr.PC applicable to proceedings under the DVC Act, 2005. On examination of the facts of the case therein, Madras High Court held that the respondent therein ought to have been filed the complaint within a period of one year from the date of the incident. In the said case, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home in the year 2014 and thereafter, she had filed so many proceedings including the complaint under Section 12 of the Act in the year 2017 only. With the said finding, Madras High Court quashed the provisions in DVC No. 4 of 2017.
10. In Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty 2 reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Joint Committee of Parliament recommended on limitation. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below.
16. At the same time, however, ground reality also cannot be ignored. Mere delay may not bar the right of the 'Crown' in prosecuting 'criminals'. But it also cannot be overlooked that no person can be kept under continuous apprehension that he can be prosecuted at 'any time' for 'any crime' irrespective of the nature or seriousness of the offence. "People will have no peace of mind if there is no period of limitation even for petty offences".
17. The Law Commission considered the question in the light of legal systems in other countries and favoured to prescribe period of limitation for initiating criminal proceedings of certain offences. 2 AIR 2007 SCC 2762 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.9632 of 2021
18. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it had been observed;
"There are new clauses prescribing periods of limitation on a graded scale for launching a criminal prosecution in certain cases. At present there is no period of limitation for criminal prosecution and a Court cannot throw out a complaint or a police report solely on the ground of delay although inordinate delay may be a good ground for entertaining doubts about the truth of the prosecution story. Periods of limitation have been prescribed for criminal prosecution in the laws of many countries and Committee feels that it will be desirable to prescribe such periods in the Code as recommended by the Law Commission."
19. The Joint Committee of Parliament also considered the following as sufficient grounds for prescribing the period of limitation; (1) As time passes the testimony of witnesses becomes weaker and weaker because of lapse of memory and evidence becomes more and more uncertain with the result that the danger of error becomes greater. (2) For the purpose of peace and repose, it is necessary that an offender should not be kept under continuous apprehension that he may be prosecuted at any time particularly because with multifarious laws creating new offences many persons at sometime or other commit some crime or the other. People will have no peace of mind if there is no period of limitation even for petty offences. (3) The deterrent effect of punishment is impaired if prosecution is not launched and punishment is not inflicted before the offence has been wiped off the memory of persons concerned. (4) The sense of social retribution which is one of the purposes of criminal law loses its edge after the expiry of long period. (5) The period of limitation would put pressure on the organs of criminal prosecution to make every effort to ensure the detection and punishment of the crime quickly. (vide Report, dated December 4, 1972; pp. xxx-xxxi)
20. It is thus clear that provisions as to limitation have been inserted by Parliament in the larger interest of administration of criminal justice keeping in view two conflicting considerations;
(i) the interest of persons sought to be prosecuted (prospective accused);
(ii) and organs of State (prosecuting agencies). 6
KL,J Crl.P. No.9632 of 2021
21. In State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, (1981) 3 SCR 349 : AIR 1981 SC 1054, this Court stated: "The object which the statutes seek to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation".
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and coming to the facts on hand in the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act, the 2nd respondent has mentioned the date of marriage as 30.03.2019 and date of separation as 30.03.2020. In the said application the respondent has sought the following reliefs.
(i) to direct the respondents to enable to return back the items i.e. 34 tulas gold, an amount of Rs.4.0 lakhs net cash, 1.0 lakh amount to sister-in-law's dowry, ½ kilo silver, Rs.50,000/- worth of household articles etc., which were presented at the time of marriage and also direct them to provide one portion in existing H.No. 1-9- 17/1/6, Ravindra Nagar Colony, Street No.8, Habsiguda, Nacharam to the complainant for shelter.
(ii) Sanctioning a sum of Rs.1.0 crore towards compensation.
(iii) Punish the respondents under DVC Act.
7
KL,J Crl.P. No.9632 of 2021 Thus, the 2nd respondent has sought several reliefs in the above said application vide DVC No. 20 of 2021 apart from seeking punishment to the complainant.
12. It is settled law that the DVC proceedings are quasi criminal proceedings in nature. The said principle was also laid down by the Madras High Court. Therefore, on the said ground, the present proceedings in DVC No. 20 of 2021 cannot be quashed. The petitioners are at liberty to take the said ground in DVC 20 of 2021 since the 2nd respondent has sought to punish the petitioners herein as one of the relief apart from the above said other reliefs. Therefore, on the said ground the proceedings in DVC No. 20 of 2021 cannot be quashed.
13. However, it is relevant to refer the following paragraphs in V. Nagarajan (Supra).
6. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in 2012 Crl.L.J.309 in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. Sate of Punjab & Anr., which reads as follows:-
"24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.9632 of 2021 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 508.
25. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the provisions of the Act 2005 is not compatible and in consonance with the decree of divorce which still subsists and thus, the process amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Undoubtedly, for quashing a complaint, the court has to take its contents on its face value and in case the same discloses an offence, the court generally does not interfere with the same. However, in the backdrop of the factual matrix of this case, permitting the court to proceed with the complaint would be travesty of justice. Thus, interest of justice warrants quashing of the same."
14. In view of the discussion and observations made in the above judgment, this Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3/2nd and 3rd respondent in DVC No. 20 of 2021, pending on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir.
15. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 7th June, 2022 Skj.