12.2011 Hardeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With above observation, petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed for quashing of FIR No.68 dated
21.7.2011 under Sections 307/498-A/34 IPC read with Section 31 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 registered at P.S. Fathudhinga, District Kapurthala. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however, copy thereof is not available with the petitioners. He further states that matter is being investigated by the police; his only grievance is that from the assertions made in the FIR, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and police has no power to register a case under the Domestic Violence Act. He, however, fairly admits that from the assertions made in the FIR, offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out. FIR in question was registered for offences punishable under CRM No. M-32154 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Sections 307/498-A IPC read with Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 31 of Domestic Violence Act reads as under: - “31.
Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent.-(1) A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both. (2) The offence under sub-section (1) shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused. (3) While framing charges under sub- section (1), the Magistrate may also frame charges under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions.” From the perusal of Section 31, I have no hesitation to hold that Magistrate shall take cognizance of the offence if final or interim protection order passed under the Act has been violated.
Operative part
In the present case, FIR is silent as to whether any protection order was ever passed under the Act and same was violated. Therefore, it seems that no offence under Section 31 of the Act is made out. However, since police is investigating the matter and it is still to be found out by the police as to whether offence under Section 307 IPC is also made out, I am not inclined to quash the FIR in question at the initial stage of the investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 307/498-A/34 IPC. With above observation, petition is dismissed. December 19, 2011 R.S. (Alok Singh) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With above observation, petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 498A; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 31; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Dec 2011. The bench was ALOK SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.