Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. However, from the judgments of this Court and other High Courts which seem to suggest that the limitation of one year as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. would be applicable for filing an application under Section 31 of the Act in case of breach of the protection order and not for filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Act.

23. The question which needs to be decided is that what should be the period of limitation for filling a complaint under Sections 12 and 18 of the Act.

24. Some High Courts including this High Court have taken the view that provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. are applicable in the case where order passed under Section 12/18 of the Act is violated and on such violation an application under Section 31 of the Act can be filed only within one year as provided under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of Akhiliesh Kumar Singh and another versus State of U.P. and another in Criminal Revision No.885 of 2015 has held as under:-

26. Gujarat High Court in its judgment in the case of Yogesh Anantrai Bhatt & others versus State of Gujarat & other 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 2398 has held that the provisions of limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable in case of an application under Section 12 of the Act. Para 13 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"13. Therefore, any other decision, even if it is dealing with the issue of limitation with reference to DV act it is to be clarified that it may be applicable only in case of proceedings under section 31 of the DV Act since sub-section [1] of section 31 contemplates punishment in the event of breach of the order under such Act. Therefore, provisions of section 31 of the DV Act do not come into play till an order in an application under section 12 is passed and till the same is breached. Therefore, when the respondent is simply seeking various reliefs contemplated by the DV Act, unless those reliefs are granted and only if such order is violated, the respondent may not have to invoke provisions of section 31 of the DV Act and at that stage only question of limitation would arise and thereby respondent may not be entitled to invoke provisions of section 31 of the DV Act seeking punishment by way of sentencing the otherside for breach of any such order after a period of one year from the date of violation of any such order. Practically the provisions of section 31 [1] of the DV Act is similar to the provisions of section 125 [3] of the Code and, [therefore, like an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code, it cannot be barred by limitation and an application under section 12 of the DV Act is not subject to limitation as contemplated by the petitioners."