Petitioners sought quashing of cognizance and summons in a dowry harassment complaint. The court found the complaint and domestic incident report showed domestic violence, noted Section 12 PWDVA proceedings do not amount to prosecution initiation per Kamatchi, and dismissed the petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2480 of 2023
------
… Petitioners
Versus
… Opposite Parties
------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate ------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1
Cr. M.P. No.2480 of 2023
prima facie case against the petitioners and directed for filing requisites for issuance of summons to the petitioner.
2 Cr. M.P. No.2480 of 2023
3 Cr. M.P. No.2480 of 2023
alternative remedy of Appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hence, the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
4
Cr. M.P. No.2480 of 2023
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi
Narayanan reported in (2022) 15 SCC 50 in Para-28 of which reads as under:-
“28. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.”
and the scope of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act is to call for a response from the respondents who are the petitioners herein, in terms of the said Act, so that after considering the rival submissions, appropriate order can
be issued; as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Para-30 of the said judgement which reads as under:-
“30. Lastly, we deal with the submission based on the decision in Adalat Prasad [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] . The ratio in that case applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and issues process, in which event instead of going back to the Magistrate, the remedy lies in filing petition under Section 482 of the Code. The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the statute so that after considering the rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued. Thus, the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in Adalat Prasad [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act.”
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of December, 2024 AFR/ Abhiraj
5
Cr. M.P. No.2480 of 2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the SDJM Gumla's order taking cognizance and issuing summons in a dowry/domestic violence complaint could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi NarayananRelied on¶33
(2022) 15 SCC 50 · Who else cites this
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal JindalReferred¶33
(2004) 7 SCC 338 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Amrendra Kumar Gupta
Prahlad Gupta @ Prahlad Prasad Gupta
Rekha Devi
Aman Kumar @ Aman Kumar Gupta
The State of Jharkhand
Priyanka Kumari
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court