This Single Judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash orders from 2012 and 2018 in a domestic violence matter. The court held that challenging the primary order after a six-year lapse without challenge provided no good ground for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 23
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9082 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Vilas Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri S.D. Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Naveen Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned AGA for the State is not present.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.7.2012 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar as well as subsequent order dated 19.12.2018 passed by A.C.M.M.-VII, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 2808 of 2011 (Smt. Reeta Vs. Ram Vilas and others), under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the applicant is made out and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He further contended that the applicant is the father-in-law of opposite party no. 2, whose husband has already passed away. It is admitted that main order dated 16.7.2012 passed in the application under Section 19 and 20 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has not been challenged due to paucity of fund and become final and subsequent order dated 19.12.2018 is based for compliance of previous order. It has been further contended that the applicant is not in a position to pay the maintenance allowance to opposite party no. 2.
As admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that order dated 16.7.2012 has not been challenged and first time after lapse of more than six years it has been challenged.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record. The impugned order dated 19.12.2018 has been passed by the Court below for compliance of previous order. I do not see any good ground for interference by this Court.
The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 12.3.2019 Manoj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash an order passed over six years ago without challenge.
Whether the present prosecution warrants quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a domestic violence case.
Whether financial inability to comply with a maintenance order constitutes grounds for quashing the underlying order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Vilas
State Of Up
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
