Court Finds Domestic Violence Allegations Vague, Initiated as Pressure Tactic in Matrimonial Discord
In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, quashed the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in the case of Shri Prakash Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The court found that the domestic incident report (DIR) lacked material particulars and was used as a pressure tactic in a matrimonial and custody dispute.
The petitioners, led by Shri Prakash Singh, challenged the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2, alleging domestic violence. The DIR, dated October 19, 2022, was found to be vague, lacking specific details about the alleged acts of violence. The court emphasized that the Protection Officer is under a statutory obligation to ensure that the DIR contains complete and accurate details, as mandated by Section 9(1)(b) of the Domestic Violence Act. The failure to comply with these mandatory requirements vitiated the initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Act.
The bench highlighted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, had established that the High Courts have the authority to quash proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act using Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but should do so with caution and only in cases of gross illegality or injustice.
The court also noted that the multiplicity of proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2, in different jurisdictions and under different statutes, indicated an attempt at forum shopping and abuse of the judicial process. The primary dispute between the parties was identified as a custody battle, with the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act being used to harass and pressure the petitioners.
In its order, the court set aside the impugned DIR and all proceedings arising from it, including the order dated November 26, 2024, by the JMFC, Surajpur, dismissing the petitioners' application. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of specific and credible allegations in domestic violence cases and cautions against the misuse of legal provisions for collateral purposes.
The court clarified that this judgment does not preclude either party from seeking appropriate remedies available under law in competent civil or family courts.
Bottom Line:
Exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is permissible, but should be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only in cases of gross illegality or injustice.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Sections 9(1)(b), 12(1)), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 482)
Shri Prakash Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2842113
