Section 31 Domestic Violence Act Only Penalises Breach Of Protection Order; Not Violation Of Other Orders: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a Petition to quash an FIR registered after the Trial Court sent an Application to the police directing registration under Section 31 of the DV Act.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, clarifying that the said section penalises a breach of a protection order, and not violation of residence orders or monetary relief.
The Court allowed a Petition for quashing the FIR registered under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) 2005. The Petitioner had argued that maintenance, compensation, and residence orders did not fall within the definition of a protection order, and only the violation of a protection order was punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that “the words in Section 31 are plain and ambiguous. They only mention the protection and interim protection order. Therefore, applying the literal rules of interpretation, Section 31 applies only to the breach of protection orders mentioned in Section 18 and not to residence orders mentioned in Section 19, monetary reliefs mentioned in section 20, custody orders mentioned in Section 21, and compensation orders mentioned in Section 22. Had the legislature intended to apply Section 31 to these orders, it would have mentioned them specifically.”
Advocate Aprajita appeared for the Petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Prashant Sen represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Complainant had filed an Application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Trial Court, asserting that the Petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of maintenance and provide the accommodation as per a previous Order of the Trial Court.
The Trial Court passed an Order sending the Application to the SHO under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. A direction was also issued to the SHO to submit the status report.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court clarified that “Section 31 of the DV Act deals with the penalty for breach of a protection order by the respondent…It is apparent from the bare perusal of the Section that it penalises the breach of a protection order or an interim protection order.”
“In the present case, the monetary relief which is separately provided in Section 2 (k) of the DV Act cannot be added to the protection order separately provided in Sections 2 (o) and 18 of the DV Act by plain meaning,” the Bench explained.
The Bench held, “Therefore, there is a force in the submission of Ms Aprajita that the learned Magistrate erred in referring the application to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The police could not have registered the FIR for the breach of the monetary order.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “the present petition is allowed and the FIR number 9/2018 dated 7th January 2018 registered at Police Station, Manali District Kullu and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR are ordered to be quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Akshay Thakur v. State of H.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:11017)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Aprajita and Ajay Thakur
Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Prashant Sen
