IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G) CR.M.P.NO. L)fc>6 /2011 u PETITIONERS/NON- APPLICANTS 1 P-R-KaJS-^:B.: f^^^^^f-^. l..........ft..'—-y-^—"""" RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT vs. Bheemesh Talokar S/o N.M. Talokdr, aged about 37 years, R/o Plot No. 92, Poonam Colony, Tahsil & District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ 5/,y; |;Tr;s()hot TQ/tlcAV N.M. Talokar;"R/o Plot No. 92, Poonam Colony, Tahsil & District -Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ,. _ , , 6:^^Cu^-tte(ez-1w-)-tb<<^^'<'l<^-d ^ ^wpuLSt^e-cl irv^^'-M/o P^<-PCW°d } Smt. Sangeeta Talokar, W/o i.&^* Bheemesh Talokar, aged about 32 years, R/o Mamta Nagar Lane No. 5, Tahsil & District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) REVISION PETmON UNDER SECTION 48^ OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ' ...sS^S^ HiUM COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'bie ShriManjindraJflonan Snrivastava.J, Cr.M.P. No.466/2011 Bneemesh ralokar and another Smt. Sanaeeta Taiokar PETjTfON UNDER SECTiON 482 OF THE CuDfc^F CKiMiNAI- PKOCEDuRE Present: - Shri Satish Chandra 'v'erma, counsei for the petltioners. (Passed on S'" ofAuaust, 20111 A Heara on acmlssion. 2. This petition has been nled by the petitioners aggrieved by the order passed on 29/06/2011 by the Magistrate proceeding under the provisions of the Protection or Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('for short 'the Act of 2005'). 3. Assaiiing the initiation of proceedings and correctness of order dated 29/06/2011, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appiication, which was initialiy filed by the respondent, was not in prescribed proforma (Form 1). it was only when an objection was raised then the complaint was fiied in the prescribed proforma. Therefore, such compiaint, ought not to have been entertained and dismissed at the threshold. By entertaining such compiaint, the Magistrate has exceeded its jurisdiction. The next submission or' learned counsel ror the petitioners is -'•'"""-'"•.•.:'?.,. itt:. ^.a ""*%€'• --'*'% ''% s &.. ." i I I —-lAI^"'^^^^ ^ "^ •:-w< ^ -y/ '^vS.a'^' % that in the entire complaint,the respondent has nowhere averred that she had ever approached anv inrormation officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the scheme of Act, uniess the aggrieved person firsi approaches the information officer and a report is submitted by the information officer to the Magistrate, the complaint couid not be directly entertained by the Magistrate. The third submission is that the Magistrate has exceeded its jurisdiction in caliing report vide impugned order dated 29/6/2011 from Mahiia Evam Bal vikas Adhikari, Rajnandgaon. He further submits that the powers which are exercisabie by the Magistrate under the Act of 2005 ou.ght to be exercised instead or caliing report from any person. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate could have called for the report onty from the protection officer and not from any other authority. Lastiy, it is submitted thateven though if the compiaint and alleaations are iooked into, there is no materiat to proceed against petitioner no.2. 4. As far as submission regarding non-submission of the compiaint in prescribed proforma is concerned, the scheme of the Act and Ruies made therein does noi indicate that the submission of the application in the prescribed proforma is mandatorv in the sense that non-submission of the appiication in the prescribed proforma shall lead to dismissal of the complaint. The provisions contained under Section 12 (3) reads that every appiicaiion under sub-section (lishall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as neariy as possibie thereto. In Rule y/^-*%i. / /f t ".. 8 v'!"^w 6 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 framed in exercise of powers under the Act also, it has been provided that the appiication shali be in Form - i! or as nearly as possible thereto. These provisions contained in the Act as welt as in Rule are cleariy indicative of the leaisiative intention that the provision is not mandatory but directorv, in so far as prororma of compiaint is concerned. Moreover, after the petitloners raised objection before the Magistrate, the respondent submitted compiaint in prescribed proforma. In the absence of there being anv timitation prescribed under the iaw for makincj compiaint under Section 12 of the Act, non-submission of complaint in prescribed proforma vi/ouid not entaii dismissal or the complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is liabte to the dlsmissed only on that a.round. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that before submittinci the application before the Magistrate, the scheme of the Act requires the a.ggrieved person to first approach the protection officer, is also not correct in the opinion of this Court. A bare reading of Section 12 (1) goes to show that an appiication may be submitted to a Magistrate either by an aggrieved person or a protection officer or any person on behalf of the aggrieved person. The proviso to the aforesaid provision does not, in any manner, iimit or restrict the scope and ambit of the provisions contained in Section 12 (1) of the Act. It merely provides that before passing an order on appiication, ihe Magistrate shaii take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the protection officer or the service provider. On a rational interpretation of such provision, it has to be heid '^ that the proviso only obliaes the Maaistrate to take into consideration the report, if any, received by him by the protection officer or by the service prbvider. However, it does not mean that if the aggrieved person directiy approaches the Magistrate, the appiication cannot be entertained. Learned counsei for the petitioner has very forcefuliy submitted with ali vehemence at his command that the Magistrate has no power to call for the report from Mahita Evam Bai Vikas Adhikari in the iight of the scheme of the Act. He submits that as the powers have been conferred on the Magistrate to award compensation and damages, the power is exercisable oniy in the manner and strictly in accordance with the limit and powers prescribed under the law. 5. The arguments of learned counsel at first blush, appear to be attractive but on ciosure examination, deserves rejection. The leaislation (The protection of Women from Domestic Vioience Act, 2005) is intended to provide for an effective protection of rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of viotence of anv kind occurrinfl within the famiiv. The Act confers remedy to wife and women and domestic relationship. In order to make the scheme of the Act, an effective instrument of providing remedy to women, who are victims of domestic violence, the Magistrate is conrerred not oniy with powers which may be avaiiable to him as provided under Criminal Procedure Code but also there exist speciai provisions under the Act which empower the Magistrate to seek asslstance. Section 15 of the Act provides for assistance of weifare expert. under provision; in any proceedings, She Magistrate may secure ;N. -Y 4l the services or such person, preferabiv a woman whetherrelated to the aggrieved person or not, inciuding a person engaged in promoting family weifare as he thinks fit, for the purpose of assisting him in dischargin.g his functions. The provision has been couched in a very wide spectrum conferring power on the Magistrate to seek assistance. The requirement of the provision that the person whose assistance is souaht should prererably a woman inciudin.g a person in en.gaged in promoting family weifare. ir the order ofthe Ma.qistrate caliin.Q report from Mahita Evam Bal Vikas Adhikari is examined in the light of provision contained in Section 15, this Court has no hesiiation to hold that the action of the Maoistrate in callina report rrom Mahiia Evam Bai vikas Adhikari is within the four corner and ambit of powers conferred under Seciion 15 ofthe Act. The Mahiia Evam Bat Vikas Adhikari is a Government Ofricer enaafled in dischame of Governmentai function in the neld of child and women development. Therefore, such an officer of the State Government would be included in the cateciory of persons enga.ged in r'amily welfare. Therefore, 1 am unabte to accept the contention or learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate, in any manner, exceeded its jurisdiction in catiina report from Mahila and Bal Vikas Adhikari much less a case of the abuse of the process of taw. The submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner that the report couid be calied only from the protection officer and not from any other authority, cannot be accepted on the face ofthe provision contained in Section 15 of the Act. The power of the Magistrate to seek assistance is in addltion to the power of the Magistrate to receive and consider the report submitted ''s1'^ /-^^ t^ '&A!&^'^.;?'^1 <^ by the protection officer as provided under Section 12 (1) of the Act. There is no specific definition of 'weifare expert' in the Act. Therefore, the meanina of 'welfare expert' is to be derived only from the provisions enaraned under Section 15 of the Act. There is no reason for thls Court to give limited or strict meaning to the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act. The provisions contained in Section 15 have to be Qiven widest meaning which advance the oDject and purpose of the Act. Therefore, i am not inctined to accept the submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to cali report from the Mahila and Bai Vikas Adhikari. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that involvement of petitioner no.2 and initiation of the proceedings by the Magistrate is misuse of the process of law, has been made at very initial sta.ge of proceeding when the Magistrate has oniy catled for report from the Mahiia and Bai Vikas Adhikari. The compiaint filed by the aggrieved person alleges that when the complainant was subjected to aileged violence by her husband, the petitioner No.2 - father asked herto leave the house. it has been aileged bythe aggrieved person that the father-in-iaw activeiy supported the husband or the respondent. Whether such alle.gations are made out or not, would be ciear only after receipt of report from the Mahila Evam Bal vikas Adhikari. The petitioners wouid be at liberty to move application for dropping proceedings against petitioner No.2, at subsequent stages of the proceedings, if he is not found invoived. i hereby give liberty to the petitioners to raise this issue at y,» fi/ A-" 'i ^s-3^ j \..^y ^^s.t,^'^'1'" appropriate level or occasion after submission of report bv Mahila Evam Bai Vikas Adhikari. 6. In the result, 1 do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is accordingiy dismissed. it is made clear that whatever observations have been made by this Court are only in order to decide the issue as to whether the proceedings could be initiated or not and not whether a case of domestic violence has been made out. The petitioners would be at liberty to take such defences as may be availabie to them under the law and the Magistrate shall decide the same, strictlv in accordance with law and material avaiiabie before it. Deepii Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge