Limitation Period U/S 468 CrPC Not Applicable To Application U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable for the filing of an application by an aggrieved woman under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.The Supreme Court held as erroneous a judgment of the Madras High Court which held that the Section 12 application ought to have been filed within one year of the acts of alleged domestic violence.Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act allows an aggrieved woman to file an application before the Magistrate seeking various reliefs - such as orders of protection or restraint or payment of compensation - against acts of domestic violence committed by her husband or in-laws. Section 468 CrPC sets out the period of limitation for taking cognizance over offences. Depending on the sentence of the offence, various limitation periods are prescribed.In this case, the Section 12 application was filed by the woman almost ten years after she had left her matrimonial home. The High Court quashed the proceedings as time-barred as per Section 468 CrPC. The High Court said that as per Sections 28 and 32 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 r/w Rule 15(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006, the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are applicable.Disapproving the High Court's approach, the Supreme Court held that a Section 12 application cannot be treated as an application in respect of an "offence". The offence under the Domestic Violence Act arises only under Section 31 when there is a violation of an order passed under Section 12."Filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act cannot be equated to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution", the Court observed.The Court added that the starting point for limitation for an offence committed under Domestic Violence Act would arise only after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act."There would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005", the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha stated.The appellant had contended that the offence under Section 31 of the Act will be said to have been committed only after the breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act and there is no limitation under the Code or under the provisions of the Act for filing of an application as such. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the starting point for reckoning the period of limitation ought to be from the date of application and as such, the High Court was justified in observing that the action was barred by time.To address these rival contentions, the bench referred to the provisions of the Act and observed thus:The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an application under Section 12 to initiate the proceedings before the concerned Magistrate. After hearing both sides and after taking into account the material on record, the Magistrate may pass an appropriate order under Section 12 of the Act. It is only the breach of such order which constitutes an offence as is clear from Section 31 of the Act. Thus, if there be any offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code will apply from the date of commission of such offence. By the time an application is preferred under Section 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Act. Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act.The court observed 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. While allowing the appeal, the bench observed:"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.The respondent also contended that in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, it was held that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused, or any material implicating the accused, or in contravention of provisions of Sections 200 and 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated. In this regard, the court observed that issuing notice under Section 12 cannot be regarded as taking cognizance of an offence.The relevant observation from the judgment is as follows:"The ratio in that case applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of...

Limitation Period U/S 468 CrPC Not Applicable To Application U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Limitation Period U/S 468 CrPC Not Applicable To Application U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers