Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The petitioners herein are the answering respondents 2 to 8 in DVC no.2 of 2017 filed by the 2nd respondent herein on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), Kurnool. The 2nd respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the said DV case, is the wife of the 1st respondent in the DV case. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein, that is, the 2 MSRM, J W.P.no.12073 of 2018 respondents 2 & 3 in the said DV case, are the parents-in-law of the said petitioner in the DV Case, that is, the 2nd respondent herein. Thus, the petitioners herein who are the respondents 2 to 8 in the DV case and the 2nd respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the DV case are closely related. The request in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to quash the DV case proceedings against the petitioners herein who are the respondents 2 to 8 in the said DV case. The principal contention is that all the allegations in the DV case are made against the husband of the 2nd respondent herein and that the writ petitioners are unnecessarily roped in by impleading them as respondents 2 to 8 in the DV Case and that, therefore, the initiation of DV case proceedings against the petitioners herein, that is, the respondents 2 to 8 in the DV case, is a clear abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be interdicted at the threshold.

36. Act not in derogation of any other law.--The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.

6. On the aspect of maintainability, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners fairly submits that in view of the settled legal position obtaining in the States of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana, a quash proceeding for quashing of DV case is not entertainable either under Section 482 of the 4 MSRM, J W.P.no.12073 of 2018 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Code', for short) or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and that therefore, the present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He fairly submits that this Court in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others v. State of Telangana and another1 and other decisions held that quash petitions under Section 482 of the Code on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties, are not maintainable and that in that decision, this Court held that the remedies under the DV Act are civil in nature and that the enquiry is not a trial similar to the one in a criminal case. The correctness or otherwise of the legal position obtaining is not under challenge in this writ petition. Accepting the above said legal position only, the present writ petition is filed inter alia stating that regular quash proceedings are not maintainable. Therefore, learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the aforestated legal position obtaining in our States, the present writ petition to quash the DV case proceedings is maintainable as the writ petitioners cannot be left without any remedy, in view of the well settled legal position enshrined in the maxim 'Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium' which means that 'wherever there is a right, there is a remedy'. However, admittedly, the petitioners herein did not explore the possibility of seeking the same remedy in the pending DV case, by invoking any provisions of law, which may be applicable. Nonetheless, the petitioners directly approached this Court and invoked the writ jurisdiction. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioners ought to have first approached the trial Court before which the DV case is pending and ought to have sought the present remedy and ought not to have filed a writ petition of this nature without exhausting the said remedy.

7. Thus, the sum and substance of the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is as follows: - 'As per settled legal 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 5 MSRM, J W.P.no.12073 of 2018 position, the remedies under DV Act are civil remedies. Therefore, a quash proceeding either under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioners who are left with no other remedy are entitled to file the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek quashment of the DV case.' This Court no doubt held that the remedies under DV Act are civil remedies and that the proceedings conducted till the passing of the orders under Sections 18, 22 are only civil in nature. In that view of the matter, the petitioners ought to have filed an application seeking the instant remedy by invoking the jurisdiction of the trial Court either under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or under Section 151 of the said Code or under Section 151 of the said Code read with any other provision of law, which according to the petitioners, may be applicable. Had the petitioners resorted to such a course, the learned Judge of the trial Court ought to have passed some orders either rejecting such an application on the ground of maintainability or on consideration of merits, in the event of the learned trial Judge were to hold that the said application is maintainable. Merely on the assumption that the learned Judge of the trial Court may not entertain such an application and that on the further assumption that no remedy is available before the trial Court, the petitioners cannot be permitted to institute the writ petition of the present nature. In the considered view of this Court, the writ petition filed on such assumptions and without first invoking the jurisdiction of the trial Court is not maintainable, in the considered view of this Court.