KAMATCHI versus LAKSHMI NARAYANAN

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 13-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 629
629
KAMATCHI
v.
LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2022)
APRIL 13, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – ss.12
and 31 – Proceedings arising out of application of appellant-wife
u/s.12 of the Act in the year 2018 seeking protection in terms of
ss.17 and 18 of the Act – Petition of respondent-husband u/s.482
CrPC – High Court quashed the proceedings on ground of limitation
holding that ss.28 and 32 of the Domestic Violence Act r/w r.15(6)
of the Domestic Violence Rules, made the provisions of Criminal
Procedure Code applicable and therefore, appellant ought to have
filed application u/s.12 of the Act within period of one year from
date of the incident and since appellant had left the matrimonial
home in the year 2008, the application was abuse of process of the
court – Whether the application preferred u/s.12 of the Act was
rightly considered by the High Court for reckoning the period of
limitation – Held: The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an
application u/s.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 u/s.12 of the Act – It is only the breach of such order which
constitutes an offence as is clear from s.31 of the Act – Thus, if
there be any offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act,
the limitation prescribed u/s.468 CrPC will apply from the date of
commission of such offence – By the time an application is preferred
under s.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 u/s.12 of the Act –
Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after
there is a breach of an order passed u/s.12 of the Act – On facts,
the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application u/s.12 of
the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution – The
High Court was in error in observing that the application u/s.12 of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the
alleged acts of domestic violence – Respondent-husband to file his
response before the Magistrate within two weeks and the matter be
thereafter considered by the Magistrate in terms of the provisions
of the Act – Limitation – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.
468, 482 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006.
Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and
another (2011) 12 SCC 588 : [2011] 10 SCR 557 and
Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary (2016) 2
SCC 705 : [2015] 14 SCR 65 – distinguished.
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases
(2014) 2 SCC 62 : [2013] 12 SCR 674 – explained.
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 –
held inapplicable.
Dr. P. Padmanathan & Ors. v. Tmt. V. Monica & Anr.
2021 SCC Online Mad 8731; Krishna Pillai v. T.A.
Rajendran & Anr. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 121; Bharat
Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2003)
8 SCC 559 and Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394 : [2007] 8 SCR 582 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 12 SCR 674
explained
Para 9
(2004) 7 SCC 338
held inapplicable
Para 9
(1990) Supp. SCC 121
referred to
Para 12
(2003) 8 SCC 559
referred to
Para 12
[2007] 8 SCR 582
referred to
Para 12
[2011] 10 SCR 557
distinguished
Para 16
[2015] 14 SCR 65
distinguished
Para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
627 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No.28924 of 2018.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
Sharath Chandran, Shyam Gopal, Ms. D. Durga Devi, Mani
Bhushan Sinha, Pranab Prakash, Advs. for the Appellant.
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Singla, Vidhi Thaker, Gagan
Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated
16.03.2020 passed by the High Court1 in Crl. O.P. No. 28924 of 2018.
3. The present proceedings arise out of an application preferred
by the appellant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which
was numbered as D.V.C. No.21 of 2018 in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Amb
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.