Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of Madras HC, while dealing with the Writ petition to squash a complaint under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act held that the plea under Sec. 482 of CRPC is not maintainable as the matter is not criminal in nature. The court clearly stated that the petition is only maintainable if the proceedings before the Magistrate suffers from a lack of authority or jurisdiction. While pronouncing the judgment the court relied upon the SC Judgement in the case Kunapareddy V. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, 2016 where the court held that the proceedings under sec. 12 of the DV Act are civil in nature and legislated to claim the civil right of an aggrieved person.
The court disagreed with the Kerala HC judgment in Baiju V. Latha where the court had stated that a Magistrate acts like a sessions judge when dealing under the Act even though the reliefs claimed are civil in nature. The Madras HC also disapproved a Bombay HC order when the court had allowed the quashing of a complaint under Sec. 482 of CRPC.
The court set out the guidelines to proper disposal of a complaint under sec. 12 of the DV Act:
• The Magistrate shall not treat an application under sec.12 of the DV Act as Complaint under Sec.200 of CRPC.
• The said application shall in the form prescribed under Form II of DV Rules 2006.
• The Magistrate shall issue a notice under chapter VI of DV instead of a summons under Sec.61 of CRPC
• Appearance of the respondent is not mandatory unless he is represented by an advocate as prescribed under the DV Rules.
• If the respondent does not appear in person or through his counsel then the Magistrate shall make an ex parte order.
• It is not mandatory for the court to issue a notice for all the respondents under sec. 12 of the DV Act.
The court made other observations to show that the proceedings under the DV Act are not analogous to the proceedings under CRPC, as set out in the order below.
86540
103860
630
114
59824