Crl.OP filed to withdraw a D.V.C. case and transfer it to a Family Court citing limitation. The Court held that transfer is not warranted, dismissed the petition, and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months.
Petition dismissed; directed trial court to complete trial within six months; MPs 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.4379 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2510 and 2511 of 2020
D.Kathiravan ... Petitioner
Vs
R.Kasthuri ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to withdraw the D.V.C.No.44 of 2019 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and to transfer the same to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai .
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondent : No Appearance O R D E R
This petition has been filed to withdraw the D.V.C.No.44 of 2019 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and to transfer the same to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai .
" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings. 13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.
4. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows: “19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellantC.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
5. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows:
"9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged. .............. 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................."
The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the complaint lodged by the respondent under Domestic Violence Act is barred by limitation for the reason that the respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home in the year 2018 onwards. It is seen from the records, there is no material produced before this Court to show that the respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home in the year 2018. Therefore all the points raised in this petition and cannot be considered by this Court and the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and to transfer the same to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The II Additional Judge,
Family Court,
Chennai .
Crl.O.P.No.4379 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.Nos.2510 and 2511 of 2020
ad[co]
srg 07/10/2020
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can transfer and quash a domestic violence complaint under Section 482 CrPC when the petitioner claims limitation and innocence.
Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent was driven out of the matrimonial home in 2018 to establish a limitation bar.
Whether the trial court should complete the trial within six months after receipt of the order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.Distinguished¶14
Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind KhannaDistinguished¶17
Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna
M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anrDistinguished¶20
Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Kathiravan
R.Kasthuri
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Parties & counsel
