Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash DVOP proceedings was dismissed. Court held quashing petitions under DV Act must be filed under Article 226/227 Constitution.
Crl.OP.No.751 of 2021 dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.
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.
Crl.OP.(MD)No.751 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.OP.(MD)No.751 of 2021 & Crl.MP(MD)Nos.331 and 333 of 2021
1.S.Thirumalai
2.M.Subramanian
3.N.Mangayarkarasi
... Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 4
vs.
A.Thangapandiammal ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in DVOP.No.25 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur and quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings in DVOP.No.25 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur.
1/3
Crl.OP.(MD)No.751 of 2021
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has further held that a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India alone would be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
"50. It follows that in view of the law laid down in S.A.L Narayan Row and Another vs. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas reported in AIR 1965 SC 1818 and Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533, that the character of a proceeding under the D.V Act, in so far is it relates to the reliefs under Sections 18 to 23, does not become criminal in character merely on account of the procedure under the Cr.P.C adopted by the Magistrate. In view of the foregoing discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that a petition to quash an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is maintainable only by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and not under Section 482, Cr.P.C."
Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
// True Copy //
mbi
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
2/3
Crl.OP.(MD)No.751 of 2021
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur.
Crl.OP.(MD)No.751 of 2021 & Crl.MP(MD)Nos.331 and 333 of 2021
ES(CO) TR(22.02.2021) 3P 4C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable to quash proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Whether aggrieved parties must approach writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution instead.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.A.L Narayan Row and Another vs. Ishwarlal BhagwandasRelied on¶22
S.A.L Narayan Row and Another vs. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas reported in AIR 1965 SC 1818 · Who else cites this
Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶22
Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
1.S.Thirumalai
2.M.Subramanian
3.N.Mangayarkarasi
A.Thangapandiammal
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
