KAMATCHI versus LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 629, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 629
629
KAMATCHI
v.
LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2022)
APRIL 13, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – ss.12
and 31 – Proceedings arising out of application of appellant-wife
u/s.12 of the Act in the year 2018 seeking protection in terms of
ss.17 and 18 of the Act – Petition of respondent-husband u/s.482
CrPC – High Court quashed the proceedings on ground of limitation
holding that ss.28 and 32 of the Domestic Violence Act r/w r.15(6)
of the Domestic Violence Rules, made the provisions of Criminal
Procedure Code applicable and therefore, appellant ought to have
filed application u/s.12 of the Act within period of one year from
date of the incident and since appellant had left the matrimonial
home in the year 2008, the application was abuse of process of the
court – Whether the application preferred u/s.12 of the Act was
rightly considered by the High Court for reckoning the period of
limitation – Held: The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an
application u/s.12 to initiate the proceedings before the concerned
Magistrate – After hearing both sides and after taking into account
the material on record, the Magistrate may pass an appropriate
order u/s.12 of the Act – It is only the breach of such order which
constitutes an offence as is clear from s.31 of the Act – Thus, if
there be any offence committed in terms of the provisions of the
Act,
the limitation prescribed u/s.468 CrPC will apply from the date of
commission of such offence – By the time an application is preferred
under s.12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the
provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting
point for limitation from the date of application u/s.12 of the Act –
Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after
there is a breach of an order passed u/s.12 of the Act – On facts,
the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application u/s.12 of
the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution – The
High Court was in error in observing that the application u/s.12 of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the
alleged acts of domestic violence – Respondent-husband to file his
response before the Magistrate within two weeks and the matter be
thereafter considered by the Magistrate in terms of the provisions
of the Act – Limitation – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.
468, 482 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006.
Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and
another (2011) 12 SCC 588 : [2011] 10 SCR 557 and
Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary (2016) 2
SCC 705 : [2015] 14 SCR 65 – distinguished.
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases
(2014) 2 SCC 62 : [2013] 12 SCR 674 – explained.
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 –
held inapplicable.
Dr. P. Padmanathan & Ors. v. Tmt. V. Monica & Anr.
2021 SCC Online Mad 8731; Krishna Pillai v. T.A.
Rajendran & Anr. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 121; Bharat
Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2003)
8 SCC 559 and Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394 : [2007] 8 SCR 582 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 12 SCR 674
explained
Para 9
(2004) 7 SCC 338
held inapplicable
Para 9
(1990) Supp. SCC 121
referred to
Para 12
(2003) 8 SCC 559
referred to
Para 12
[2007] 8 SCR 582
referred to
Para 12
[2011] 10 SCR 557
distinguished
Para 16
[2015] 14 SCR 65
distinguished
Para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
627 of 2022.
From the Judgment
and Order dated 16.03.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No.28924 of 2018.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
Sharath Chandran, Shyam Gopal, Ms. D. Durga Devi, Mani
Bhushan Sinha, Pranab Prakash, Advs. for the Appellant.
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Singla, Vidhi Thaker, Gagan
Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated
16.03.2020 passed by the High Court1 in Crl. O.P. No. 28924 of 2018.
3. The present proceedings arise out of an application preferred
by the appellant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which
was numbered as D.V.C. No.21 of 2018 in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai. The application was filed seeking
appropriate protection in terms of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and was
preferred against the respondent-husband as well as the father-in-law
and sister-in-law of the appellant. The Protection Officer vide his
Domestic Inspection Report dated 21.08.2018 tabulated the incidents of
domestic violence as under:-
“4.  Incidents of domestic violence:-
1 High Court of Judicature at Madras
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
The basic allegations as culled out from the Report of the Protection
Officer were:-
“My name Kamakshi. Marriage solemnized in between me and
my husband on 07.09.2007. The dowry, which was given to my
marriage, 60 sovereign gold, 4 ½ kg silver, Rs.50,000/- and other
household things placed at my Husband’s House. My parents spent
Rs. 15 lakhs for marriage. Before the marriage, my husband family
members came to our home for give invitation and gave mental
stress and stated that jewel and dowry are not enough. My father
borrowed loan and conducted marriage with intention of marriage
should be go in smooth manner. After next day of marriage, they
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
633
spoke in disrespectful manner towards me and my parents stating
that no sufficient jewel and household things were given. They
did many tricks for I would not go with my husband to London
and they tortured me. I gave birth to a male child on 06.09.2008.
My husband family members came for Punyathanam function
and spoke disrespectful as this is not our heir and refused to accept
the child. I preferred many cases for to living together with my
husband. I went to my husband home with the High Court order.
Rajeshwari has not allowed me and my child and spoke
disrespectful manner and drove us out and told me to go and die
somewhere.”
4. Soon thereafter, father-in-law and sister-in-law of the appellant
filed Crl.O.P.No.27097 of 2018 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’, for short) before the High Court seeking
quashing of the proceedings under the Act. Crl.O.P. No.28924 of 2018
was filed by the respondent-husband seeking identical relief under Section
482 of the Code. The main grounds taken by the respondent in said
Original Petition were: -
“E. It is submitted that the Petitioners are forced to face the ordeal
of trial on no material or even probabilities or a real instance, thus,
the impugned proceedings in D.V. No. 21 of 2018 against the
Petitioner is illegal, unwarranted and it is nothing but an abuse of
process of law and therefore it is liable to be quashed.
F. The Petitioner submits that a matrimonial dispute is sought to
be given a criminal colour at the instance of the Respondent. The
allegations against the petitioner is unsustainable in law and allowing
the proceedings further would serve no purpose so far as the
Petitioner is concerned. Therefore, on that ground, the proceedings
against the Petitioner/Respondent in D.V. No.21 of 2018 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, is liable to be
quashed.”
5. Both the Original Petitions came up before the High Court on
16.03.2020.
A. The Petition filed by the father-in-law and the sister-in-law
was allowed and the proceedings against them were quashed. It was
observed by the High Court :-
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
“5. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the
proceedings in D.V. No.21 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Ambattur, insofar as the petitioners herein are
concerned, on condition that, they shall ensure that the A1/husband
of the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000(Rupees Five
Thousand only) before 5th of every English Calendar month to the
credit of D.V. No.21 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Ambattur, as ad-interim maintenance, without prejudice to both
the parties, failing which this order shall stand automatically
cancelled. On such deposit being made, the respondent is entitled
to withdraw the same.
6. Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since
the impugned proceedings in D.V.No.21 of 2018 is pending from
the year 2018 onwards, it would be appropriate to direct the Trial
Court to complete the trial within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. A1/husband of the respondent
is directed to appear before the Trial Court on the next hearing
date, failing which, the respondent is at liberty to approach this
Court.”
B. However, with regard to the petition filed by the respondent,
the High Court took the view that the application ought to have been
filed within one year of the incident and since the appellant had left the
matrimonial home in the year 2008, the application was abuse of process
of the court. The relevant
observations made were :-
“5. The only point for consideration is limitation. In this regard, it
is relevant to rely upon the judgment in the case of Inderjit Singh
Grewal vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2012 Crl.L.J.
309. Sections 28 and 32 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 r/w Rule 15(6) of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006, makes the provisions
of Criminal Procedure Code applicable. Therefore, the respondent
ought to have filed the complaint within a period of one year from
the date of the incident.
6. In the case on hand, the respondent left the matrimonial home
in the year 2008 itself, thereafter, there are so many proceedings
pending against the petitioner and the respondent herein, in respect
to their family disputes. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent herein and a sum of Rs.15,000/-
to the minor son as maintenance in MC No.261 of 2013 and it is
under challenge before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.567 of 2018 and
the petitioner herein has been continuously paying the maintenance
to the respondent.
7. Therefore, on the ground of limitation, the entire complaint is
nothing but a clear abuse of process of Court and it cannot be
sustained as against the petitioner.”
6. In these circumstances, the instant appeal is preferred by the
appellant against the order allowing the Petition filed by the respondent.
7. We have heard Mr. Sharath Chandran, learned Advocate in
support of the appeal and Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate
for the respondent.
8. Mr. Sharath Chandran, learned Advocate submits: -
a) The limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code
postulates inter alia that no cognizance be taken by the Court
more than a year after the commission of offence. Thus, the
limitation is to be reckoned from the date of commission of
offence.
b) Section 12 of the Act speaks of filing of an application seeking
one or more reliefs under the Act, whereafter the relevant material
is considered by the Magistrate including any Domestic Incident
Report. The matter is then heard in terms of Sub-Section (4) and
finally an order may be made on the application.
c) As laid down in Section 31 of the Act, any breach of an order
passed inter alia under Section 12 of the Act is punishable
with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to one year, or with fine, or with both. Thus, the offence under
Section 31 of the Act will be said to have been committed only
after the breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act,
occurs.
d) There is no limitation under the Code or under the provisions of
the Act for filing of an application and as such, the High Court
was not right in observing that the proceedings were barred by
limitation.
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
e) The Judgments relied upon by the High Court were completely
distinguishable. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Single
Judge of the High Court in Dr. P. Padmanathan & Ors. v. Tmt.
V. Monica & Anr.2.
9. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate for the
respondent submits: -
i) The tabular chart prepared by the Protection Officer in his
Report indicates that after 16.09.2008 for almost 10 years nothing
was alleged against the respondent or the father-in-law or sister-
in-law.
ii) The parties had been living separately for last several years
and the application was nothing but a desperate attempt to file
something against the respondent in a court of law; and was clearly
an abuse of process of court.
iii) Going by the dictum of this Court in Sarah Mathew v. Institute
of Cardio Vascular Diseases3, the starting point for reckoning
the period of limitation ought to be from the date of application
and as such, the High Court was justified in observing that the
action was barred by time.
In the written submissions, it is also submitted that: -
“This Hon’ble Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal4
held that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues
process without there being any allegation against the accused, or
any material implicating the accused, or in contravention of
provisions of Sections 200 and 202, the order of the Magistrate
may be vitiated. However, the relief an aggrieved accused can
obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code,
because the Code does not contemplate a review of an order.
Hence in the absence of any review power, or inherent power
with the subordinate criminal courts, the remedy lies in invoking
Section 482 of the Code.”
 10. Before we consider the rival submissions, the relevant
provisions, namely Sections 12, 28, 31 and 32 of the Act may be extracted:-
2 2021 SCC Online Mad 8731.
3 (2014) 2 SCC 62.
4 (2004) 7 SCC 338.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
637
“12. Application to Magistrate. —
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person
on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to
the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the
Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident
report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service
provider.
(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief
for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages
without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for
compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of
domestic violence committed by the respondent:
Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or
damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved
person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the
order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against
the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be
executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.
(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form
and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as
possible thereto.
(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall
not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the
application by the court.
(5) The Magistrate shall endeavor to dispose of every application
made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the
date of its first hearing.
28. Procedure. —
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under
sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section
31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying
down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section
12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.
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 Magistrates
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.
32. Cognizance and proof. —
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offence under sub-section (1) of
section 31 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
(2) Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court
may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of section 31
has been committed by the accused.”
11. Similarly,
Section 468 of the Code is also set out for facility: -
“468.Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of
limitation: -
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court
shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in
sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be-
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
639
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment
for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3)For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation
to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with
reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe
punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.”
12. In terms of Section 468 of the Code, the cognizance of an
offence of the categories specified in Sub Section 2 can not to be taken
after the expiry of the period specified therein.
In following cases, the complaints alleging commission of an
offence were filed well in time so that cognizance could have been taken
within the prescribed period, but the matters were considered by the
Magistrate after the expiry of the prescribed period, and as such the
cognizance in each of the cases was taken after the expiry of the period
prescribed.
(A) A bench of three Judges of this Court in Krishna Pillai v.
T.A. Rajendran & Anr.5, while dealing with Section 9 of the Child
Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, which mandates that no Court should
take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of one year from the day
when the offence was allegedly committed, observed: -
“3. It is not disputed that cognizance has been taken by the court
more than a year after the offence was committed. Counsel for
the respondents has stated that since the complaint had been filed
within a year from the
commission of the offence it must be taken
that the court has taken cognizance on the date when the complaint
was filed. In that view of the matter there would be no limitation.
4. Taking cognizance has assumed a special meaning in our
criminal jurisprudence. We may refer to the view taken by a five
Judge bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas
Nayak6. At p. 530 (para 31) of the reports this Court indicated:
“When a private complaint is filed, the court has to examine the
complainant on oath save in the cases set out in the proviso to
Section 200 Cr.P.C. After examining the complainant on oath and
examining the witnesses present, if any, meaning thereby that the
5 1990 (Supp.) SCC 121.
6 (1984) 2 SCC 500 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 277
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
witnesses not present need not be examined, it would be open to
the court to judicially determine whether a case is made out for
issuing process. When it is said that court issued process, it means
the court has taken cognizance of the offence and has decided to
initiate the proceedings and a visible manifestation of taking
cognizance process is issued which means that the accused is
called upon to appear before the court.””
(B) In Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh7 a complaint was lodged within one year but the cognizance
was taken after the period of one year was over. The complainant had
approached within time and the delay was because of an act of court,
over which the prosecuting agency or the complainant had no control. A
bench of two Judges of this Court observed that “Limitation for taking
cognizance of certain offences” must be reckoned from the day when
the complaint was filed or proceedings were initiated. The discussion on
the point was: -
“10. On facts of this case and based on the arguments advanced
before us, we consider it appropriate to decide the question
whether the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code apply to
the delay in instituting the prosecution or to the delay in taking
cognizance. As noted above, according to the learned counsel for
the appellants, the limitation prescribed under the above Chapter
applies to taking of cognizance by the court concerned, therefore
even
if a complaint is filed within the period of limitation mentioned
in the said Chapter of the Code, if the cognizance is not taken
within the period of limitation the same gets barred by limitation.
This argument seems to be inspired by the chapter heading of
Chapter XXXVI of the Code which reads thus: “Limitation for
taking cognizance of certain offences”. It is primarily based on
the above language of the heading of the Chapter, the argument is
addressed on behalf of the appellants that the limitation prescribed
by the said Chapter applies to taking of cognizance and not filing
of complaint or initiation of the prosecution. We cannot accept
such argument because a cumulative reading of various provisions
of the said Chapter clearly indicates that the limitation prescribed
therein is only for the filing of the complaint or initiation of the
7 (2003) 8 SCC 559.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
641
prosecution and not for taking cognizance. It of course prohibits
the court from taking cognizance of an offence where the
complaint is filed before the court after the expiry of the period
mentioned in the said Chapter. This is clear from Section 469 of
the Code found in the said Chapter which specifically says that
the period of limitation in relation to an offence shall commence
either from the date of the offence or from the date when the
offence is detected. Section 470 indicates that while computing
the period of limitation, time taken during which the case was
being diligently prosecuted in another court or in appeal or in
revision against the offender should be excluded. The said section
also provides in the Explanation that in computing the time required
for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any
other authority should be excluded. Similarly, the period during
which the court was closed will also have to be excluded. All
these provisions indicate that the court taking cognizance can take
cognizance of an offence the complaint of which is filed before it
within the period of limitation prescribed and if need be, after
excluding such time which is legally excludable. This in our opinion
clearly indicates that the limitation prescribed is not for taking
cognizance within the period of limitation, but for taking cognizance
of an offence in regard to which a complaint is filed or prosecution
is initiated beyond the period of
limitation prescribed under the
Code. Apart from the statutory indication of this view of ours, we
find support for this view from the fact that taking of cognizance
is an act of the court over which the prosecuting agency or the
complainant has no control. Therefore, a complaint filed within
the period of limitation under the Code cannot be made infructuous
by an act of court. The legal phrase “actus curiae neminem
gravabit” which means an act of the court shall prejudice no man,
or by a delay on the part of the court neither party should suffer,
also supports the view that the legislature could not have intended
to put a period of limitation on the act of the court of taking
cognizance of an offence so as to defeat the case of the
complainant. This view of ours is also in conformity with the earlier
decision of this Court in the case of Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh
Kumar Bhada8 .
8 (1997) 2 SCC 397 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 415
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
11. If this interpretation of Chapter XXXVI of the Code is to be
applied to the facts of the case, then we notice that the offence
was detected on 5-3-1999 and the complaint was filed before the
court on 3-3-2000 which was well within the period of limitation,
therefore, the fact that the court took cognizance of the offence
only on 25-3-2000, about 25 days after it was filed, would not
make the complaint barred by limitation.
12. In view of our above finding, we do not think it is necessary
for us to go to the next question argued on behalf of the appellants
that the court below was in error in invoking Section 473 of the
Code for extending the period of limitation nor is it necessary for
us to discuss the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara
Dutt & Anr.9 relied on by the appellants.”
(Emphasis added)
(C) In Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty10 the offence
was allegedly committed on 2.2.1996 and the complaint was filed on
5.2.1996 but the cognizance of the offence was taken on 8.8.1997 when
the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code for the concerned
offence was only six months. After considering the relevant cases on
the point including Bharat Damodar Kale7, a bench of two Judges of
this Court observed:
“48. So far as the complainant is concerned, as soon as he files a
complaint in a competent court of law, he has done everything
which is required to be done by him at that stage. Thereafter, it
is
for the Magistrate to consider the matter, to apply his mind and to
take an appropriate decision of taking cognizance, issuing process
or any other action which the law contemplates. The complainant
has no control over those proceedings.
49. Because of several reasons (some of them have been referred
to in the aforesaid decisions, which are merely illustrative cases
and not exhaustive in nature), it may not be possible for the court
or the Magistrate to issue process or take cognizance. But a
complainant cannot be penalized for such delay on the part of the
court nor can he be non-suited because of failure or omission by
9 (2000) 1 SCC 230 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 125
10 (2007) 7 SCC 394.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
the Magistrate in taking appropriate action under the Code. No
criminal proceeding can be abruptly terminated when a complainant
approaches the court well within the time prescribed by law. In
such cases, the doctrine ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ (an act
of court shall prejudice none) would indeed apply. (vide Alexander
Rodger v. Comptoir D’ Escompte.11 One of the first and highest
duties of all courts is to take care that an act of court does no
harm to suitors.
50. The Code imposes an obligation on the aggrieved party to
take recourse to appropriate forum within the period provided by
law and once he takes such action, it would be wholly unreasonable
and inequitable if he is told that his grievance would not be ventilated
as the court had not taken an action within the period of limitation.
Such interpretation of law, instead of promoting justice would lead
to perpetuate injustice and defeat the primary object of procedural
law.
51. The matter can be looked at from different angle also. Once
it is accepted (and there is no dispute about it) that it is not within
the domain of the complainant or prosecuting agency to take
cognizance of an offence or to issue process and the only thing
the former can do is to file a complaint or initiate proceedings in
accordance with law, if that action of initiation of proceedings has
been taken within the period of limitation, the complainant is not
responsible for any delay on the part of the court or Magistrate in
issuing process or taking cognizance of an offence. Now, if he is
sought to be penalized because of the omission, default or inaction
on the part of the court or Magistrate, the provision of law may
have to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It can possibly be urged that such a provision is totally
arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. It is settled law that a court
of law would interpret a provision which would help sustaining
the validity of law by applying the doctrine of reasonable
construction rather than making it vulnerable and unconstitutional
by adopting rule of litera legis. Connecting the provision of
limitation in Section 468 of the Code with issuing of process or
taking of cognizance by the court may make it unsustainable and
ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
11 (1871) LR 3 PC 465 : 17 ER 120
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
52. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing
the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as
the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings
and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance
of process by a court. We, therefore, overrule all decisions in
which it has been held that the crucial date for computing the
period of limitation is taking of cognizance by the Magistrate/court
and not of filing of complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings.
53. In the instant case, the complaint was filed within a period of
three days from the date of alleged offence. The complaint,
therefore, must be held to be filed within the period of limitation
even though cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate after
a period of one year. Since the criminal proceedings have been
quashed by the High Court, the order deserves to be set aside and
is accordingly set aside by directing the Magistrate to proceed
with the case and pass an appropriate order in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible.”
(Emphasis added)
(D) In Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases
etc. and others12, a bench of two Judges of this Court noted the facts of
the case as under: -
“1. Mr. K. Swami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
submitted that the High Court [Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases v. Sarah Mathew, Criminal OP No. 12001 of 1997,
decided on 17-7-2002 (Mad)] was clearly wrong in holding that
the proceeding against the respondents was barred by limitation,
as provided under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, because the order issuing summons against the
accused was passed by the Magistrate after three years from the
date of the occurrence, even though the complaint was admittedly
filed within the period of limitation. In support of the contention,
he relies upon a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Bharat
Damodar Kale7 in which, on an examination of the provisions
contained in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
it was held that the Court can take cognizance of an offence, the
complaint of which is filed before it, within the period of limitation
12 (2014) 2 SCC 102
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
prescribed and, if need be, after excluding such time which is
legally excludable. It further held that the limitation prescribed is
not for taking cognizance within the period of limitation, but for
taking cognizance of an offence in regard to which a complaint is
filed or prosecution is initiated beyond the period of limitation
prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision
in Bharat Damodar Kale7 is followed in another two-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty10. In para 52 of the decision in Japani Sahoo10, it was
reiterated that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation,
the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of
complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of
taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a
court.”
Thereafter, noticing the conflict in the view taken in Bharat
Damodar Kale7 and Japani Sahoo10 as against that in Krishna Pillai5,
the matter was referred to a three Judge bench, which in turn referred13
the matter to a larger Bench. While doing so, the three-Judge Bench
observed:
“……The three-Judge Bench in Krishna Pillai5 has not adverted
to diverse aspects including the aspects that inaction on the part
of the court by not taking cognizance swiftly or within limitation,
although the complaint has been filed within time or the prosecution
has been instituted within time, should not act prejudicial to the
prosecution or the
complainant.”
(E) A Constitution Bench of this Court in Sarah Mathew v.
Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases etc. and others3 framed the
questions for its consideration as under:
“3. No specific questions have been referred to us. But, in
our opinion, the following questions arise for our consideration:
3.1. (i) Whether for the purposes of computing the period
of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date
of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution
or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate
takes cognizance of the offence?
13 (2014) 2 SCC 104.
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
3.2. (ii) Which of the two cases i.e. Krishna
Pillai5 or Bharat Kale7 (which is followed in Japani Sahoo10,
lays down the correct law?”
After noticing the 42nd Law Commission’s Report and the relevant
provisions and scheme of Chapter XXXVI of the Code, the Constitution
Bench stated:
“37. We are inclined to take this view also because there has to
be some amount of certainty or definiteness in matters of limitation
relating to criminal offences. If, as stated by this Court, taking
cognizance is application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected
offence, the subjective element comes in. Whether a Magistrate
has taken cognizance or not will depend on facts and
circumstances of each case. A diligent complainant or the
prosecuting agency which promptly files the complaint or initiates
prosecution would be severely prejudiced if it is held that the
relevant point for computing limitation would be the date on which
the Magistrate takes cognizance. The complainant or the
prosecuting agency would be entirely left at the mercy of the
Magistrate, who may take cognizance after the limitation period
because of several reasons; systemic or otherwise. It cannot be
the intention of the legislature to throw a diligent complainant out
of the court in this manner. Besides, it must be noted that the
complainant approaches the court for redressal of his grievance.
He wants action to be taken against the perpetrators of crime.
The
courts functioning under the criminal justice system are created
for this purpose. It would be unreasonable to take a view that
delay caused by the court in taking cognizance of a case would
deny justice to a diligent complainant. Such an interpretation of
Section 468 CrPC would be unsustainable and would render it
unconstitutional. It is well settled that a court of law would interpret
a provision which would help sustaining the validity of the law by
applying the doctrine of reasonable construction rather than
applying a doctrine which would make the provision unsustainable
and ultra vires the Constitution. (U.P. Power Corpn.
Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra14)
***
***
***
14 (2008) 10 SCC 139 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1000
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
41. There can be no dispute about the rules of interpretation cited
by the counsel. It is true that there is no ambiguity in the relevant
provisions. But, it must be borne in mind that the word “cognizance”
has not been defined in CrPC. This Court had to therefore interpret
this word. We have adverted to that interpretation. In fact, we
have proceeded to answer this reference on the basis of that
interpretation and keeping in mind that special connotation acquired
by the word “cognizance”. Once that interpretation is accepted,
Chapter XXXVI along with the heading has to be understood in
that light. The rule of purposive construction can be applied in
such a situation. A purposive construction of an enactment is one
which gives effect to the legislative purpose by following the literal
meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance
with the legislative purpose or by applying a strained meaning
where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative
purpose (see Francis Bennion on Statutory Interpretation).
After 
noticing 
this 
definition 
given 
by Francis
Bennion in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain
Dhut15 , this Court noted that : (SCC p. 718, para 35)
“35. More often than not, literal interpretation of a statute
or a provision of a statute results in absurdity. Therefore, while
interpreting statutory provisions, the courts should keep in mind
the objectives or purpose for which statute has been enacted.”
In the
light of this observation, we are of the opinion that if in the
instant case literal interpretation appears to be in any way in conflict
with the legislative intent or is leading to absurdity, purposive
interpretation will have to be adopted.
***
***
***
49. It is true that penal statutes must be strictly construed. There
are, however, cases where this Court has having regard to the
nature of the crimes involved, refused to adopt any narrow and
pedantic, literal and lexical construction of penal statutes.
(See Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra16
and Kisan Trimbak Kothula v. State of Maharashtra.17 In this
15 (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142
16 (1976) 3 SCC 684 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 493
17 (1977) 1 SCC 300 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 97
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
case, looking to the legislative intent, we have harmoniously
construed the provisions of Chapter XXXVI so as to strike a
balance between the right of the complainant and the right of the
accused. Besides, we must bear in mind that Chapter XXXVI is
part of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a procedural law
and it is well settled that procedural laws must be liberally construed
to serve as handmaid of justice and not as its mistress. (See Sardar
Amarjit Singh Kalra (D) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Pramod Gupta (D) by
Lrs. & Ors.18, N. Balaji v. Virendra Singh19 and Kailash v. Nankhu
& Ors.20"
Finally, it was concluded in paragraphs 50 and 51 as under:
“50. Having considered the questions which arise in this reference
in the light of legislative intent, authoritative pronouncements of
this Court and established legal principles, we are of the opinion
that Krishna Pillai5 will have to be restricted to its own facts
and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is
the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of
limitation under Section 468 CrPC, primarily because in that case,
this Court was dealing with Section 9 of the Child Marriage
Restraint Act, 1929 which is a special Act. It specifically stated
that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the said
Act after the expiry of one year from the date on which offence
is alleged to have been committed. There is no reference either to
Section 468 or Section 473 CrPC in that judgment. It does not
refer to Sections 4 and 5 CrPC which carve out exceptions for
the special Acts. This Court has not adverted to diverse aspects
including the aspect that inaction on the part of the court in taking
cognizance within limitation, though the complaint is filed within
time may work great injustice on the complainant. Moreover,
reliance placed on Antulay ‘1984’ case6, in our opinion, was not
apt. In Antulay ‘1984’ case6 this Court was dealing inter alia
with the contention that a private complaint is not maintainable in
the Court of the Special Judge set up under Section 6 of the Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 (“the 1952 Act”). It was urged that
the object underlying the 1952 Act was to provide for a more
18 (2003) 3 SCC 272
19 (2004) 8 SCC 312
20 (2005) 4 SCC 480]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
speedy trial of offences of corruption by a public servant. It was
argued that if it is assumed that a private complaint is maintainable
then before taking cognizance, a Special Judge will have to examine
the complainant and all the witnesses as per Section 200 CrPC.
He will have to postpone issue of process against the accused
and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation
to be made by a police officer and in cases under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 by police officers of designated rank for
the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground
for proceeding. It was submitted that this would thwart the object
of the 1952 Act which is to provide for a speedy trial. This
contention was rejected by this Court holding that it is not a
condition precedent to the issue of process that the court of
necessity must hold the inquiry as envisaged by Section 202 CrPC
or direct investigation as therein contemplated. That is matter of
discretion of the court. Thus, the questions which arise in this
reference were not involved in Antulay ‘1984’ case6: since there,
this Court was not dealing with the question of bar of limitation
reflected in Section 468 CrPC at all, in our opinion, the said
judgment could not have been usefully referred to in Krishna
Pillai5 while construing provisions of Chapter XXXVI CrPC. For
all these reasons, we are unable to endorse the view taken
in Krishna Pillai5.
51. In view of the above, we hold
that for the purpose of computing
the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date
is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of
prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes
cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale7 which is followed
in Japani Sahoo10, lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai5 will
have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for
deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose
of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC.”
13. It is, thus, clear that though Section 468 of the Code mandates
that ‘cognizance’ ought to be taken within the specified period from the
commission of offence, by invoking the principles of purposive
construction, this Court ruled that a complainant should not be put to
prejudice, if for reasons beyond the control of the prosecuting agency or
the complainant, the cognizance was taken after the period of limitation.
It was observed by the Constitution Bench that if the filing of the complaint
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
or initiation of proceedings was within the prescribed period from the
date of commission of an offence, the Court would be entitled to take
cognizance even after the prescribed period was over.
14. The dictum in Sarah Mathew3 has to be understood in light of
the situations which were dealt with by the Constitution Bench. If a
complaint was filed within the period prescribed under Section 468 of
the Code from the commission of the offence but the cognizance was
taken after the expiry of such period, the terminal point for the prescribed
period for the purposes of Section 468, was shifted from the date of
taking cognizance to the filing of the complaint or initiation of proceedings
so that a complaint ought not to be discarded for reasons beyond the
control of the complainant or the prosecution.
15. Let us now consider the applicability of these principles to
cases under the Act. The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an
application under Section 12 to initiate the proceedings before the
concerned Magistrate. After hearing both sides and after taking into
account the material on record, the Magistrate may pass an appropriate
order under Section 12 of the Act. It is only the breach of such order
which constitutes an offence as is clear from Section 31 of the Act.
Thus, if there be any offence committed in terms of the provisions of the
Act, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code will apply
from
the date of commission of such offence. By the time an application
is preferred under Section 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed
in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a
starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12
of the Act. Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only
after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act.
16. We may now deal with the case on which reliance was placed
by the High Court.
Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and another21 was a
case where the marriage between the parties was dissolved by judgment
and decree dated 20.03.2008. Thereafter, the wife preferred an application
under the provisions of the Act on 4.5.2009 alleging that the decree of
divorce was sham and that even after the divorce the parties were living
together as husband and wife; and that she was thereafter forced to
leave the matrimonial home. It was, in these circumstances, that an
21 (2011) 12 SCC 588
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
application under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the husband
seeking quashing of the proceedings under the Act. It was observed that
a suit filed by the wife to declare the judgment and decree of divorce as
a nullity was still pending consideration before the competent court. The
effect of the proceedings culminating in decree for divorce was
considered by this Court as under:-
“16. The question does arise as to whether the reliefs sought in
the complaint can be granted by the criminal court so long as the
judgment and decree of the civil court dated 20-3-2008 subsists.
Respondent 2 has prayed as under:
“It is therefore prayed that Respondent 1 be directed to hand
over the custody of the minor child Gurarjit Singh Grewal
forthwith. It is also prayed that Respondent 1 be directed to
pay to her a sum of Rs 15,000 per month by way of rent of the
premises to be hired by her at Ludhiana for her residence. It is
also prayed that all the respondents be directed to restore to
her all the dowry articles as detailed in Annexures A to C or in
the alternative they be directed to pay to her a sum of
Rs.22,95,000 as the price of the dowry articles. Affidavit
attached.”
Thus, the reliefs sought have been threefold: (a) custody of the
minor son; (b) the right of residence; and (c) restoration of dowry
articles.
17. It is a settled legal proposition that where a person gets an
order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon
the competent authority,
such order cannot be sustained in the
eye of the law as fraud unravels everything. “Equity is always
known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties
invented to evade law.” It is trite that “fraud and justice never
dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). Fraud is an
act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something,
which is otherwise not due. Fraud and deception are synonymous.
“Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted
with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of
any equitable doctrine.” An act of fraud on court is always viewed
seriously. (Vide Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy22 )
22 (2010) 8 SCC 383
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
18. However, the question does arise as to whether it is permissible
for a party to treat the judgment and order as null and void without
getting it set aside from the competent court. The issue is no
more res integra and stands settled by a catena of decisions of
this Court. For setting aside such an order, even if void, the party
has to approach the appropriate forum. [Vide State of Kerala v.
M.K. 
Kunhikannan 
Nambiar 
Manjeri
Manikoth23 and Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber
Industries (P) Ltd.24]”
The plea based on the issue of limitation was then considered in
paragraphs 32 and 33 and it was observed: -
“32. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of
limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 CrPC, that the
complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the
date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the
provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the 2005 Act read with Rule
15(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules,
2006 which make the provisions of CrPC applicable and stand
fortified by the judgments of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra
Sekhar Mohanty 10 and NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v.
NOIDA25.
33. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint
under the provisions of the 2005 Act is not compatible and in
consonance with the decree of divorce which still subsists
and
thus, the process amounts to abuse of the process of the court.
Undoubtedly, for quashing a complaint, the court has to take its
contents on its face value and in case the same discloses an
offence, the court generally does not interfere with the same.
However, in the backdrop of the factual matrix of this case,
permitting the court to proceed with the complaint would be travesty
of justice. Thus, interest of justice warrants quashing of the same.”
17. Another case on which reliance was placed during the hearing
was Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary26. In that case, a
decree for judicial separation was passed by a competent court.
23 (1996) 1 SCC 435
24 (1997) 3 SCC 443
25 (2011) 6 SCC 508
26 (2016) 2 SCC 705
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
Thereafter, an application under Section 12 of the Act was preferred by
the wife seeking return of Stridhan articles and allied reliefs. A plea
was taken by the husband that the proceedings under the Act were
barred by time. The Magistrate held that as a result of decree for judicial
separation, the parties ceased to be in domestic relationship and as such,
no relief could be granted. The appeal arising therefrom was dismissed
by the lower appellate court and finally revision preferred by the wife
was also dismissed by the High Court. In light of these facts, the issue of
limitation was considered by this Court as under: -
“32. Regard being had to the aforesaid statement of law, we have
to see whether retention of stridhan by the husband or any other
family members is a continuing offence or not. There can be no
dispute that wife can file a suit for realization of the stridhan but
it does not debar her to lodge a criminal complaint for criminal
breach of trust. We must state that was the situation before the
2005 Act came into force. In the 2005 Act, the definition of
“aggrieved person” clearly postulates about the status of any
woman who has been subjected to domestic violence as defined
under Section 3 of the said Act. “Economic abuse” as it has been
defined in Section 3(iv) of the said Act has a large canvass. Section
12, relevant portion of which has been reproduced hereinbefore,
provides for procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs. It has been
held
in Inderjit Singh Grewal21 that Section 468 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure applies to the said case under the 2005 Act
as envisaged under Sections 28 and 32 of the said Act read with
Rule 15(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Rules, 2006. We need not advert to the same as we are of the
considered opinion that as long as the status of the aggrieved
person remains and stridhan remains in the custody of the husband,
the wife can always put forth her claim under Section 12 of the
2005 Act. We are disposed to think so as the status between the
parties is not severed because of the decree of dissolution of
marriage. The concept of “continuing offence” gets attracted from
the date of deprivation of stridhan, for neither the husband nor
any other family members can have any right over the stridhan
and they remain the custodians. For the purpose of the 2005 Act,
she can submit an application to the Protection Officer for one or
more of the reliefs under the 2005 Act.
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
33. In the present case, the wife had submitted the application on
22-5-2010 and the said authority had forwarded the same on 1-6-
2010. In the application, the wife had mentioned that the husband
had stopped payment of monthly maintenance from January 2010
and, therefore, she had been compelled to file the application for
stridhan. Regard being had to the said concept of “continuing
offence” and the demands made, we are disposed to think that
the application was not barred by limitation and the courts below
as well as the High Court had fallen into a grave error by dismissing
the application being barred by limitation.”
18. Inderjit Singh Grewal21 was decided before the decision of
this Court in Sara Mathew3. Rather than the issue of limitation, what
really weighed with this Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal21 was the fact
that the domestic violence was alleged after the decree for divorce,
when any relationship between the parties had ceased to exist. It is true
that the plea based on Section 468 of the Code was noted in paragraph
32 of said decision but the effect and interplay of Sections 12 and 31 of
the Act was not noticed. In Krishna Bhattarcharjee26 as is evident
from paragraph 33 of the said decision, the plea of limitation was rejected
as the offence was found to be continuing one and as such there was no
terminal point from which date the limitation could be reckoned.
Thus, none of these decisions is material
for the purposes of the
instant matter.
19. The special features with regard to an application under Section
12 of the Act were noticed by a Single Judge of the High Court in Dr. P.
Padmanathan & Ors.2 as under:
“19. In the first instance, it is, therefore, necessary to examine
the areas where the D.V. Act or the D.V. Rules have specifically
set out the procedure thereby excluding the operation of Cr.P.C.
as contemplated under Section 28(1) of the Act. This takes us to
the D.V. Rules. At the outset, it may be noticed that a “complaint”
as contemplated under the D.V. Act and the D.V. Rules is not the
same as a “complaint” under Cr.P.C. A complaint under Rule
2(b) of the D.V. Rules is defined as an allegation made orally or in
writing by any person to a Protection Officer. On the other hand,
a complaint, under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. is any allegation
made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
action under the Code, that some person, whether known or
unknown has committed an offence. However, the Magistrate
dealing with an application under Section 12 of the Act is not
called upon to take action for the commission of an offence. Hence,
what is contemplated is not a complaint but an application to a
Magistrate as set out in Rule 6(1) of the D.V. Rules. A complaint
under the D.V. Rules is made only to a Protection Officer as
contemplated under Rule 4(1) of the D.V. Rules.
20. Rule 6(1) sets out that an application under Section 12 of the
Act shall be as per Form II appended to the Act. Thus, an
application under Section 12 not being a complaint as defined under
Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C, the procedure for cognizance set out
under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code followed by the procedure
set out in Chapter XV of the Code for taking cognizance will
have no application to a proceeding under the D.V. Act. To
reiterate, Section 190(1)(a) of the Code and the procedure set out
in the subsequent Chapter XV of the Code will apply only in cases
of complaints, under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C, given to a Magistrate
and not to an application under Section 12 of the Act.”
20. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated filing of
an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or
initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in
error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought
to have
been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of
domestic violence.
21. It is, however, true that as noted by the Protection Officer in
his Domestic Inspection Report dated 2.08.2018, there appears to be a
period of almost 10 years after 16.09.2008, when nothing was alleged
by the appellant against the husband. But that is a matter which will
certainly be considered by the Magistrate after response is received
from the husband and the rival contentions are considered. That is an
exercise which has to be undertaken by the Magistrate after considering
all the factual aspects presented before him, including whether the
allegations constitute a continuing wrong.
22. Lastly, we deal with the submission based on the decision in
Adalat Prasad4. The ratio in that case applies when a Magistrate takes
cognizance of an offence and issues process, in which event instead of
KAMATCHI v. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
going back to the Magistrate, the remedy lies in filing petition under
Section 482 of the Code. The scope of notice under Section 12 of the
Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute
so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be
issued. Thus, the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in
Adalat Prasad4 would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is
issued under Section 12 of the Act.
23. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the view taken
by the High Court. Crl. O.P. No.28924 of 2018 is accordingly, dismissed.
The husband shall file his response before the Magistrate within two
weeks and the matter shall thereafter be considered by the Magistrate
in terms of the provisions of the Act.
24. We must clarify that we have considered the instant matter
from the perspective whether the application preferred under Section
12 of the Act was rightly considered by the High Court for reckoning the
period of limitation. We have not and shall not be taken to have expressed
any view on merits of the matter which shall be gone into independently
at every stage.
25. The appeal is, thus, allowed. No order as to costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)