Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 129 (HP)

Anju v. Rakesh

2017-03-06

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)—Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against judgment and order dated 18.5.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba in first appeal No. 2 of 2010, reversing judgment dated 18.12.2009, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba in case No. 5-IV of 2009, whereby learned Court below allowed the complaint having been filed by complainant (petitioner herein) and restrained the respondents from committing domestic violence as well as to provide separate accommodation and maintenance to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month from the date of petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerged from record, are that petitioner herein approached the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') alleging therein that respondents maltreated and misbehaved with her without any reason or cause and failed to provide her maintenance. She further alleged that respondents snatched her child and ousted her from matrimonial house. 3. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record, allowed aforesaid complaint, having been filed by complainant, and accordingly, restrained the respondents from committing domestic violence and directed him to provide separate accommodation as well as maintenance to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month from the date of petition. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order/judgment, having been passed by learned Trial Court, respondents filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba allowed the appeal, as a result of which, judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court came to be set aside. 5. In the aforesaid background, complainant approached this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C., praying therein for restoration of judgment passed by learned Trial Court after setting aside the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba. 6. 5. In the aforesaid background, complainant approached this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C., praying therein for restoration of judgment passed by learned Trial Court after setting aside the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba. 6. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the entire evidence, adduced on record as well as impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below, perusal whereof clearly suggests that non-compliance of Section 12 of the Act by Magistrate i.e. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, while examining the complaint having been filed by complainant, weighed heavily with learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, while allowing the appeal of respondents. Section 12 of the Act clearly suggests that before passing any order on application, if any, filed by complainant under the aforesaid Act, the Magistrate shall take into consideration domestic incident report submitted by Protection Officer or service provider. Admittedly, in instant case as clearly emerged from record, learned Magistrate failed to comply with aforesaid provision of law before holding complainant entitled to benefit under Section 12 of the Act, hence, this Court solely on aforesaid account deems it fit to remand the case back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba to reexamine the issue afresh after calling report from concerned Protection Officer/service provider. 7. Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion, impugned judgements passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside and learned Trial Court is directed to decide the matter afresh after calling report from Protection Officer preferably within a period of four months after the receipt of concerned record. Criminal revision petition is disposed of including all miscellaneous application(s), if any.