Allowed

Sri Aithappa Poojary v. the Protection Officer

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2024WP/15997/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a notice issued by the Protection Officer alleging domestic violence. The High Court held that Section 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not empower the Protection Officer to issue notices for enquiry verification. The petition was allowed and the notice quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices dated 3.4.2017 issued by the 1st respondent were quashed.

Sri Aithappa Poojary Vs the Protection Officer — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:27768 WP No. 15997 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 15997 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI AITHAPPA POOJARY SON OF SRI KANTHAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDENT OF CAUVERY NILAYA CHECKPOST, VAMANJURU MANGALURU.

¶7

SMT KALYANI W/O SRI AITHAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF CAUVERY NILAYA CHECKPOST, VAMANJURU MANGALURU.

¶8

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI GIRISH SON OF SRI AITHAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF CAUVERY NILAYA CHECKPOST, VAMANJURU MANGALURU.

¶10

SMT SHOBHA WIFE OF SRI GIRISH POOJARY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF CAUVERY NILAYA CHECKPOST, VAMANJURU MANGALURU.

¶11

SRI JAGADEESH SON OF SRI AITHAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF CAUVERY NILAYA CHECKPOST, VAMANJURU MANGALURU.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27768 WP No. 15997 of 2017

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE PROTECTION OFFICER UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT MANGALURU (URBAN) AND OFFICE OF THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER MANGALURU URBAN, SILVA CROSS ROAD VELENTIA, BISHOP VICTOR CROSS ROAD MANGALURU-575 002.

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANDESHWARA POLICE STATION MANGALURU.

¶18

SMT LALITHA DO OF SRI APPANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SANGAM HOUSE, NO.14-993 SHAKTHNAGAR CROSS PADAVU, KUSHEKAR MANGALURU-575 005.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. M V ADITHI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF NOTICES DTD.3.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A, A1, A2, A3 AND A4 RESPECTIVELY AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27768 WP No. 15997 of 2017

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Respondent No.3 filed a complaint before respondent No.1, alleging domestic violence against the petitioners herein. In response, the 1st respondent issued an impugned notice, calling upon the petitioners to participate in the enquiry. Taking exception to this notice, the petitioners have filed this petition.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the duties of the 1st respondent are enumerated in Section 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the learned counsel, there is no provision in the Act that authorizes the 1st respondent to issue a notice to the petitioners to participate in an enquiry to determine the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent lacks legal authority and is not sustainable in law.

¶27

In contrast, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that to ascertain the participation and involvement of the petitioners in the allegations made in the complaint, the 1st respondent submitted a report to the jurisdictional court. The impugned notice was issued under the authority granted by Section 9 of the Act, and hence, it cannot be said to lack legal authority.

¶28

The arguments presented by the learned counsel for both parties have been duly examined.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27768 WP No. 15997 of 2017

¶30

Section 9 of the Act, 2005 outlines the duties and functions of Protection Officers, which include assisting the Magistrate in discharging functions under the Act, making a domestic incident report to the Magistrate, and forwarding copies to the relevant police station and service providers. The Protection Officer is also responsible for making applications to the Magistrate for protection orders, ensuring legal aid for the aggrieved person, maintaining a list of service providers, arranging safe shelter homes, facilitating medical examinations, and ensuring compliance with monetary relief orders under Section 20 of the Act. The Protection Officer operates under the control and supervision of the Magistrate and performs duties as prescribed by the Magistrate and the Government.

¶31

Section 12 of the Act allows an aggrieved person, a Protection Officer, or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person to present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.

¶32

Importantly, there is no provision in Section 9 of the Act that empowers the Protection Officer to issue a notice to the petitioners to participate in an enquiry specifically to verify the allegations made in a complaint filed by respondent No.3. The duties outlined in Section 9 do not include the authority to summon individuals for such enquiries.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27768 WP No. 15997 of 2017

¶34

In the absence of specific provisions within the Act that authorize the 1st respondent to issue such a notice, the impugned notice calling upon the petitioners to participate in the enquiry lacks legal authority. Consequently, the notice is not legally sustainable. The Protection Officer's role is primarily to assist the Magistrate and ensure that the appropriate legal processes are followed, rather than to conduct independent enquiries into the veracity of complaints. Therefore, the actions of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned notice exceed the statutory authority granted under the Act.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶36

The impugned notice dated 3.4.2017 issued by the 1^st respondent at annexure-A1 to A4 stands quashed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sri Aithappa Poojary v. the Protection Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Aithappa Poojary v. the Protection Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D S Ashok Kumar (Dy. S.P) Vs the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission

Sri K Somashekar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

M T Vishwanath Vs D.C. Girish

Mr Lakshnarashimha Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S A.V. Dhammangi Vision Foundation Vs Reserve Bank of India

Dr B v Rchandre Gowda Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies