Karnataka High Court
Mr B Ravichandran vs Smt K Ahila on 28 August, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4959 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Mr.B.Ravichandran
S/o.Balasundaram
Aged about 35 years
R/at.No.34, Saraswathi Vasakasalai Street
Devakottai Town, Devakottai Taluk
Sivagangai District (T.N.)
2. Sri.Balasundaram
Aged about 70 years
3. Smt.Jayakodi
W/o.Sri.Balasundaram
Aged about 65 years
Both Residing at
No.34, Saraswathi Vasaka
Salai Street, Devakottai
Tamil Nadu - 630 302.
...Petitioners
(By Shri.Harikrishna S Holla, Adv.,)
AND:
Smt.K.Ahila
W/o.Ravichandran
D/o.Kandasamy
2
Aged about 33 years
Residing at No.93
Neil Nivas House
Near Sony Engineering
1st Cross, Ward No.1, Jalahalli West
Kammagondanahalli
Bangalore-560 015.
...Respondent
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure praying that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to quash the proceedings in
Crl.Misc.No.120/2013 pending on the file of the M.M.T.C. -
IV, Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following: -
ORDER
The proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in Crl.Misc.No.120/2013 on the file of IV MMTC, Bangalore, is sought to be quashed by presenting this petition inter alia on the ground that the proceedings initiated are barred by Law of Limitation contained under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3
3. On perusal of the documents produced, I am of the considered opinion that there is no justifiable ground to entertain this petition. No doubt, the proceedings initiated under the Act requires to be conducted as per the procedures set out in Criminal Procedure Code. However, proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act is not for prosecuting the opposite party for any offence, but it is only to seek certain reliefs provided under the Act. In that view of the matter, the provision relating to Limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. has no application to the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition. Hence, this petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB