Under Rule 5 an application under Section 12 of the Act has to be filed only in Form II but admittedly the application has been filed by the respondent in Form I instead of Form II the same ought not to have been entertained by the learned Magistrate. Form I as pointed out above is prescribed for the Protection Officer/Service Provider to file the domestic incident report but the respondent by inadvertence and mistake has filed the application in Form I instead of Form II. Further in Form I filed by the respondent all the details and averments for establishing the domestic violence and regarding the availability of the shared household have not been set-out in detail. Had the respondent filed an application prescribed under Form II all the aforesaid details could have been set-out in detail which would have enabled the court below to adjudicate the issue in a judicious manner. Though in the above Criminal Original Petition interim orders passed in Crl.M.P. no 275 of 2005 alone has been challenged if the same alone is set-aside and the main petition in Crl.M.P. no. 275 of 2008 is allowed to be proceeded with and ultimately if a final order is passed the same will be challenged on the very same grounds and in that process valuable judicial time will be lost and the respondent also will be put to hardship as she may not be in a position to get a relief ultimately which she may be entitled to under the Act. Therefore to avoid miscarriage of justice and to secure ends of justice all further proceedings in Crl.M.P. No. 275 of 2008 itself is quashed giving liberty to the respondent under the Rules framed under the Act.
- MadrasHC quashes DV as not filed properly.pdf
- (3.62 MiB) Downloaded 13 times