# Dakshpal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 1040
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-07-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12144 of 2020
- **Bench:** Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dakshpal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45915
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act- Section 29- Appeal -
Challenged through Criminal Application u/s
482 Cr.Pc - Alternative remedy- Settled by
Full Bench in Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State
of U.P. reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 29 that a
revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C
against a judgment and order passed by the
Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the
Act, 2005 is maintainable- The applicant has
statutory alternative remedy of filing a
revision. Consequently, present application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed on
the ground of alternative remedy.

An appellate order passed u/s 29 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act can only be challenged through a criminal
revision and an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
challenging the order u/s 29 of the Act is not
maintainable, as held by the Full Bench of this
Court in Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of
U.P. reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 29.

Criminal Application dismissed. (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

## Text

1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)09ILR A1040
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12144 of 2020

Dakshpal Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashish Goyal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act- Section 29- Appeal -
Challenged through Criminal Application u/s
482 Cr.Pc - Alternative remedy- Settled by
Full Bench in Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State
of U.P. reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 29 that a
revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C
against a judgment and order passed by the
Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the
Act, 2005 is maintainable- The applicant has
statutory alternative remedy of filing a
revision. Consequently, present application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed on
the ground of alternative remedy.

An appellate order passed u/s 29 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act can only be challenged through a criminal
revision and an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
challenging the order u/s 29 of the Act is not
maintainable, as held by the Full Bench of this
Court in Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of
U.P. reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 29.

Criminal Application dismissed. (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. reported
in 2016 (11) ADJ 29
(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant
Kumar, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri P.K.
Shahi, for the State.

2. By means of this application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has
challenged the order dated 27.02.2020
passed by the Addl. Session Judge, Court
No. 16, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 137
of 2019 9Dakshpal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others0 as well as the ordered
27..03.2019 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate,Court no. 07,Agra in
complaint case No. 1415 of 2017 (Smt.
Vijay Laxmi & Twinkal and others Vs.
Dakshpal Singh), under section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, police Station Jagdishpura,
District Agra.

3. The brief facts of this case are that
that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint
under section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act in
Police station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra
before the court below on 15.07.2017
against the applicant and other family
members. On 27.03.2019 the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 7 granted the interim maintenance in
favour of the opposite party No. 2 and
directed the applicant to pay Rs. 8,000/- per
month from the opposite party no. 2 and
Rs. 2,000/- per month for her minor child
on 10th date of each month.

4. After passing the aforesaid order
the applicant moved a criminal appeal
before the court of District & Sessions
Judge, Agra on 07.05.2019 and challenged
the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.
9 All. Dakshpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1041
7, Agra whereby on 27.02.2020 learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 16, Agra
confirmed the order dated 27.03.2019
passed by the A.C.J.M.,Court No. 7, Agra.

5. It is argued on behalf of applicant
that the application under section 482
Cr.P.C. is maintainable but failed to
produce or supply any case law in support
of his arguments.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the application and raised the
controversy
with
regard
to
the
maintainability of the revision against the
order passed in appeal under section 29 of
the Act which has already been settled by
Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 29 wherein it
has been held in paragraph No.23.2, 24 and
25 as under:

"23.2 In view of the above, as the
remedy of an appeal had been provided
under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 before a
Court of Sessions, which means a Court of
Sessions referred under Section 6 read with
Sections 7 and 9 of the Cr P C, without
saying anything more as regards the
procedure to be followed in such appeal,
and there being nothing to the contrary in
the Act of 2005 which may be indicative of
exclusion
of
the
application
of
the
provisions of Cr.P.C. to such an appeal, the
normal remedies available against a
judgment and order passed by a Court of
Sessions by way of appeals and revisions
prescribed under the Cr P C before the
High Court, are available against an order
passed in appeal under Section 29 of the
Act, 2005.

24. The Single Judge Benches of
this Court in the case of Nishant Krishan
Yadav (supra) and Mrs. Manju Sree
Robinson (supra) have erred in holding
that such a criminal revision is not
maintainable before the High Court. The
judgment in Chiranjeev Kumar Arya
(supra) against which the Special Leave
Petition has been dismissed by the Supreme
Court on 12.08.2016 and the judgment in
Prabhunath Tiwari (supra) lay down the
law correctly.

25. In the result, we answer the
first question in the affirmative holding that
the decisions in Nishant Krishna Yadav
(supra) and Manju Shree Robinson (supra)
do not lay down the law correctly. In other
words, we hold that a revision under
Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a
judgment and order passed by the Court of
Sessions under Section 29 of the Act, 2005
is maintainable and that the decisions in
Nishant Krishna Yadav (supra) and Manju
Shree Robinson (supra) do not lay down
the law correctly."

7. As such the applicant has statutory
alternative remedy of filing a revision.
Consequently, present application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed on the
ground of alternative remedy.

8. Certified copy, if any, may be
returned to the applicant's counsel.

9. Taking into consideration that
Covid-19 pandemic is continuing and due
to which certified copy of this order would
not be possible to be obtained by the
applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order
downloaded from the official website of
Allahabad High Court and self-attested by
the counsel for the applicant is placed
before the Court concerned, the same
would be entertained.
----------
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)09ILR A1042
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12537 of 2019

Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kamla Kant Mishra, Sri Varun Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Sri Lok
Nath Shukla

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 498A of I.P.C. - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 177 - Territorial
Jurisdiction- The offence under section 498A
of the IPC is a continuing offence- In a case
where a trial can be held in any of the places
falling
within
the
purview
of
the
aforementioned provision, investigation can
be conducted by the officer-in-charge of the
police
station
concerned,
which
has
jurisdiction to investigate in relation there
to. Section 178(b) of Cr.P.C.-Speaks of cases
when an offence is committed partly in one
area and partly in another area, that the
courts having jurisdiction in both the areas
have got territorial jurisdiction to take
cognizance of an offence.

Since the offence u/s 498A of the IPC is a
continuing offence, hence the courts having
jurisdiction in both the areas, e.i matrimonial as
well as parental home of the wife will have the
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said
offence.

Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 227- 239- Charge- Third
round of litigation- Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. was filed with same contentions,
which were previously declined twice. An
option was given for moving discharge
application, if any, u/s 239, 227/228
Cr.P.C., as the case may be. But it was not
raised at that time and charge has already
been framed. Pre-trial charge acquittal is
not permissible. At the time of disposal of
application
u/s
227
or
239
Cr.P.C.
meticulous
analysis
of
facts
and
circumstances with marshaling of facts
and application of judicial precedent is not
to be made by trial court at that stage.

It is settled law that charge can be framed even
on the ground of strong suspicion and the court
is not required to analyse the facts in a detailed
manner.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 6, 7, 9,
17) (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs St. of Guj.,
(2008) 8 SCC 300

2. Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs St. of Maha. & Ors,
AIR 1979 SC 94,

3. Palwinder Singh Vs Balwinder Singh & ors,
(2008) 14 SCC 504

4. R.S. Nayak Vs A.R. Antulay & anr, AIR 1986
SC 2045

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. This application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.
has been filed by Dharmendra Kumar
Tiwari against State of U.P. and Ajit
Kumar Pandey with a prayer to quash
impugned judgment and order dated
16.1.2019, passed by C.J.M., Bhadohi at
Gyanpur, along with entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 2596 of 2015, State Vs.
Dilwar Tiwari and others, pending before
above court, arising out of Case Crime No.
147 of 2013, u/s 498A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
3/ 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Gopiganj, District Sant
Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), because of being