Proceedings U/s. 12 DV Act Not Equivalent To Criminal Prosecution; Magistrate Can Drop Proceedings: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are not criminal in nature, and that the Magistrate may recall or drop the process if allegations do not justify the parties being summoned.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act do not amount to criminal prosecution and, therefore, allow the trial Magistrate to reassess the summons issued during the proceedings.
The High Court was hearing a petition challenging the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, as well as the monetary relief earlier directed to be paid to the wife and minor child.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar, upon hearing the matter, observed that “proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution.”
Advocate Salih Pirzada appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
Background
The respondents, being the wife and daughter of the first petitioner, filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act alleging domestic violence, harassment and cruelty. Based on the application, the trial Magistrate issued summons and directed payment of monetary compensation and rental.
The petitioners contended before the High Court that the allegations were vague and that the relatives of the husband were included without any specific accusations. They claimed the proceedings were initiated without proper satisfaction under the DV Act.
The petitioners sought quashing of the petition and the order passed by the Magistrate, contending that the process was issued mechanically.
Court’s Observation
The J&K and Ladakh High Court examined the nature and scope of proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, and emphasised that the statutory scheme does not place such proceedings at par with criminal complaints or prosecution.
The Bench, while holding that the trial Magistrate retains jurisdiction to reassess whether summons should continue against each party, remarked: “The trial Magistrate, after obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The Magistrate is also competent to drop the proceedings against all or any of the relatives of the husband if he, upon going through their response, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in”.
Based on these findings, the Bench held that “since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings”.
The Court further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022), wherein it was held that issuance of notice under Section 12 is only a step to call for a response and enable the Magistrate to determine the need for further orders, and that principles governing complaints under the Code of Criminal Procedure are not automatically attracted.
The Court, accordingly, observed that the petitioners may approach the Magistrate with a request to drop proceedings based on their specific objections.
Conclusion
Consequently, the petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioners to seek the dropping of proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act before the trial Magistrate.
The High Court directed that if the application is filed within ten days, the proceedings against other petitioners shall remain stayed until consideration of the application.
Cause Title: Reyaz Ahmad Lone & Others v. Naziya Hassan & Another