The Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations set forth in Article 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to filing a claim for a victim woman under Article 12 of the Act on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 2005.
The Supreme Court has admitted a false decision by the Madras Supreme Court. The ruling ruled that the application for Article 12 should be made within one year of the alleged domestic violence file. Under Article 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, victims shall apply to a justice of the peace for various remedies, such as protection or detention orders or payment of compensation for domestic violence committed by a husband or wife-in-law. I can. Section 468CrPC sets the statute of limitations for knowledge of criminal offences. Different statutes apply depending on the sentence. In this case, the application for Section 12 was made almost 10 years after the woman left the couple’s house. The High Court has set aside the proceedings as prohibited by the statute of limitations under Article 468 CrPC. The High Court is subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Articles 28 and 32 of the 2005 Domestic Violence Act and under Rule 15 (6) on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence in 2006. I decided. The Supreme Court did not approve the High Court’s approach and ruled that the application under Article 12 could not be treated as an application related to “criminal offences.” Criminal offences under the Domestic Violence Act exist in accordance with §31 only if there is a breach of an order issued in accordance with §12.
“Filing an application under Article 12 of the Act does not constitute filing a complaint or initiating criminal prosecution,” the court said. The court added that the starting point for the statute of limitations for crimes committed under the Domestic Violence Act only arises after violating an order made under Article 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.
“From the date of application under Article 12 of the Act on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, there will never be a starting point for the statute of limitations,” said a jury consisting of Judges UU Lalit and PS Narashima. Said.
The applicant submitted that a breach under Article 31 of the Act would only be made after the breach of an order under Article 12 of the Act and that there would be no restrictions on the submission of an application under the Code or the provisions of the Act. like that. The respondent argued that the starting point for calculating the statute of limitations must be the filing date and that the High Court itself has the right to find that the proceedings are prohibited.
To address these competing claims, the Chamber of Commerce referred to the provisions of the law and noted the following: The provisions of the
Act provides for the submission of an application for Article 12 to initiate a proceeding in front of the relevant Justice of the Peace. After hearing the opinions of both parties and reviewing the materials in the file, the Justice of the Peace may issue the corresponding order in accordance with Article 12 of the Act. As stated in Article 31 of the Act, only breach of such an order constitutes a criminal offence. Therefore, if a crime is committed under the provisions of law, the restrictions set forth in Section 468 of the Code will apply from the date of the crime. At the time the application for Article 12 is upheld, there is no criminal offence within the meaning of the law and therefore there is no starting point for a prescription from the date the application for Article 12 is made. Such a starting point for statute of limitations will only occur if there is a breach of an order made under Article 12 of the Act. The court found that the High Court mistakenly equated the filing of an application under Article 12 of the Act with the filing of a complaint or the initiation of criminal prosecution. While acknowledging the appeal, the Chamber of Commerce said:
“Therefore, the High Court mistakenly equates the submission of an application under Article 12 of the Act with the filing of a complaint or the commencement of prosecution, and the application is within one year of the allegation of domestic violence under Article 12 of the Act. Should have been submitted. Violation, prosecution, without requesting the defendant or materials relating to the defendant, or violating the provisions of Articles 200 and 202, violates the order of the Security Judge. There is a possibility. In this regard, the court has determined that the notice under Article 12 cannot be regarded as knowledge of criminal offences. The relevant remarks from the decision are:
“The relationship, in this case, applies when the judge becomes aware of the crime and initiates procedure 482 of the Code. The scope of the notice under Article 12 of the Act is that the order is issued after considering competing submissions. Therefore, as of 31, this issue is based on another basis, and at the stage when the notice under Article 12 of the Act is issued, a. Dalat Prasad’s dictation is unreliable.