# Lalmani & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 316
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-24
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 3372 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalmani-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46319
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 323,504,506quashing
of
summoning
orderChargesheet
filed
u/s
323,504,506Section 506 IPC is cognizable and nonbailable in view of the law laid down in
Mata Sewak case followed in Praveen
Kumar and Bhagwan Singh case, it has to
be tried as a State case not as complaint
case-Learned trial court committed no
illegality while taking cognizance u/s
190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and in adopting the
procedure of trial provided for the cases
instituted on police report u/s 173(2) and
provision of section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. do not
apply to the present case.(Para 1 to17)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. Considering the gravity of the
offence, learned trial court is directed to
take fresh cognizance only after the valid
sanction
has
been
obtained
by
the
prosecution from the competent authority.

13. With these observations, the
petition is disposed of.
----------
(2021)10ILR A316
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 3372 of 2021

Lalmani & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Mohd. Raziullah, Gayasuddin

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 323,504,506quashing
of
summoning
orderChargesheet
filed
u/s
323,504,506Section 506 IPC is cognizable and nonbailable in view of the law laid down in
Mata Sewak case followed in Praveen
Kumar and Bhagwan Singh case, it has to
be tried as a State case not as complaint
case-Learned trial court committed no
illegality while taking cognizance u/s
190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and in adopting the
procedure of trial provided for the cases
instituted on police report u/s 173(2) and
provision of section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. do not
apply to the present case.(Para 1 to17)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Virendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2002) 45 ACC 609 , MANU/UP/0455/2000

2. Mata Sewak Upadhyay & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (1995) JIC 1168 (All) FB

3. Aires Rodrigues Vs Vishwajeet P.Rane & ors.
MANU/SC/0078/2017

4. Taiyab Khan & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
MANU/UP/ 5347/2018

5.
Hussain
&
ors.
Vs
U.O.I.
&
ors.
MANU/SC/0274/2017 In Re : to issue certain
Guidelines
Regarding
inadequacies
&
deficiencies in Criminal Trials Vs St. of A.P. &
ors. MANU/SC/0292/2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam
Khan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Farhan Alam Osmany
holding brief for Mohd. Raziullah, learned
counsel for the applicants as well as Shri
Rajesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

2.The instant application has been
filed by the applicants- Lalmani and
Jitendra with the prayer to quash the
summoning order dated 3.8.2021 passed in
Criminal Case No. 7349 of 202, arisen out
of Case Crime No. 23/2021 under Sections
323,
504,
506
IPC,
Police
Station
Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar,
pending in the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and
also to quash the charge sheet and entire
proceedings of the above mentioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that a non-cognizable report was
lodged by the opposite party no.2 in the
instant case under Sections 323, 504 IPC.
However under the orders of the Magistrate
the said non-cognizable report was directed
to
be
investigated
and
after
the
10 All. Lalmani & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
317
investigation charge sheet under Sections
323, 504, 506 IPC has been filed.

4. While referring to Section 2(d) of
Cr.P.C. and also drawing the attention of
this Court on an order passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated
10.2.2020 in Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 5575 of 2020, it is vehemently
submitted that it was the duty of the trial
court to have adopted the procedure as
prescribed for trial of the complaint cases
and
the
Magistrate
has
taken
the
cognizance under Section 190(1) (b) of the
Cr.P.C. and the proceedings of the case is
going like a case instituted on a police
report and material illegality has been
committed by the trial court, requires
intervention by this Court and thus all the
proceedings pending before the trial court
are nothing but the abuse of the process of
law and be quashed.

5. Learned AGA on the other hand
submits that vide U.P. Govt. Notification
No. 777/VIII 9-4 (2)-87 dated July 31,
1989 published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra,
Part-4, Section (Kha) dated 2nd August,
1989 the offence of Section 506 IPC in the
territory of Uttar Pradesh has been declared
as cognizable and non-bailable and when
the charge sheet has been filed under
Section323,504,506 IPC and and the
cognizance
has
been
taken
by
the
Magistrate treating Section 506 IPC as
cognizable,under section 190(1)(b) of Crpc
no
illegality
appears
to
have
been
committed by the trial court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the record
issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is
hereby dispensed with as the instant case is
being disposed of purely on the question of
law settled by a Full Bench of this Court as
well as on the basis of decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order
intended to be passed will not affect the
rights of opposite No. 2 in any way.

7. In nutshell the issue before this
Court is that as to whether Section 506 IPC
is either cognizable or is non-cognizable
offence so as to adjudicate whether the trial
Court should have adopted the procedure of
complaint case or that of the case instituted
on police report. Ld. Counsel for the
applicants has cited Virendra Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002
(45) ACC 609, MANU/ UP/ 0455/ 2000,
in support of his contentions whereby the
notification dated 31.7.1989 declaring
Section 506 IPC as cognizable and nonbailable, was held to be illegal.

8. Having given my considered
thought to the dispute under consideration
it is evident that the issue whether Section
506 IPC, in pursuance of the notification
dated 31.07.1989 mentioned herein above
issued by the State Government published
in U.P.Gazette dated 02.08.1989, is either
cognizable or is non-cognizable is now no
more 'res integra'. A Full Bench of this
Court in Mata Sewak Upadhyay and Anr.
v. State of U.P. and Ors.. 1995 JIC 1168
(All)
(FB),
after
considering
the
notification issued by the State Government
referred to herein above has held the
notification issued by the state Government
as valid in following words;-

"91. There are two notifications
of December 29, 1932 and August 2, 1989
which came to be issued in exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 10 of the Act
of 1932. Whereas, the first notification was
made applicable only to a few districts,
mentioned therein, the second notification
of August 2, 1989 which was issued in
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
super session of the notifications earlier
issued in this behalf, states that the
Governor is pleased to declare that any
offence punishable under Section 506 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) when committed
in any district of Uttar Pradesh, shall
notwithstanding anything contained in the
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973,
be
cognizable and non-bailable. From the
second notification it is, therefore, clear
that that was issued in super session of the
notification of December 29, 1932 and the
effect of this notification is that the offence
punishable under Section 506, IPC when
committed at any place through, out the
Uttar
Pradesh,
shall
notwithstanding
anything
contained
in
the
Criminal
Procedure Code, be cognizable and nonbailable. In the first Schedule to the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the
offence under Section 506 IPC is described
as non-cognizable and bailable, but by
virtue of Sec. 10 of the Act of 1932, the
same has been declared for the entire Uttar
Pradesh as cognizable and non-bailable by
the notification of August 2, 1989. Sec. 10
of the Act of 1932 confers powers of the
State Government to declare by notification
in the official Gazette that an offence
punishable under Section 506 IPC inter
alia when committed in any area specified
in the notification, shall notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898, be cognizable and nonbailable and thereupon the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 shall while such
notification remain in force, be deemed to
be amended accordingly. The submission is
that by the Act of 1932, an amendment was
made in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898, which stood repealed by virtue of
Section
484
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973, which was assented by
the President of April 1, 1974. The Act of
1932 having been passed simply to amend
the Cr. P.C. of 1889, the argument of Sri
Misra is that the former could not survive
beyond the life of the Cr. P.C. of 1898,
which came to an end after being repealed
in April, 1974. In short, he submits that the
life of the Amending Act cannot be more
that the principal act and that the
amending act is co-extensive and coterminus with the Principal Act and that
Cr. P.C. of 1898 which was amended by the
Act of 1932, having been repealed in April,
1974, the Act of 1932 could not have
survived thereafter. Sri Tulsi argues that it
is a misnomer to say that the Act of 1932 is
simply an Amending Act. He submits that
the Act of 1932 is named as "The Criminal
Law Amendment Act, 1932'', because that
has made some amendment in the general
body of criminal law and, in fact, the Act of
1932 is not only an Amending Act but a
unique blend of substantive law as well as
of the provisions making an amendment in
the Cr. P.C., 1898 and that it having
contained substantive provisions as well,
cannot be said to be co-terminus with the
Cr. P.C. of 1898 in which certain
amendments were made, says Sri Tulsi.
From perusal of the Act of 1932, the
submission of Sri Tulsi appears to be
correct that the said enactment is not
merely an Amending Act but that is a blend
of substantive provisions as well as the
provisions amending Cr. P.C. of 1898. So
the Act of 1932 is still on the statute book,
notwithstanding the repeal of Cr. P.C.
1898.

92. Therefore, the contention of
Sri Misra that impugned notification of
August 2, 1989, having been issued under a
dead enactment is invalid, has to be
rejected.

94 At the very outset, it is pointed
out that the Division Bench while making
10 All. Lalmani & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
319
reference, did not refer any question
relating to the validity of Section 10 of the
Act of 1932, but it has been argued before
us in connection with the validity of the
notification of August 2, l989. Sri tulsi
candidly of Section 10 being decidcd by the
Full Bench, inasmuch as the respondents
are duly out to notice. It is also made clear
that while making reference, the Division
Bench was not aware of Section 10
notification of August 2, 1989, which refers
to the entire Uttar Pradesh and at that
stage, the Division Bench simply referred
to the earlier notification of December 29,
1932 notifying only a few districts. By
notification of December 29, 1932, Section
506, IPC was made cognizable and nonbailable only for a few districts but by
subsequent notification of August 2, 1989,
Section 506, IPC has been declared
cognizable and non-bailable for all district
of Uttar Pradesh, i.e.,for the entire Uttar
Pradesh.

95 In these circumstances, the
Full Bench proceeds to decide the validity
of Section 10 and that of the notification of
August 2, 1989.

110. In the premises, Sections
3,4,7,8 and 14 of the Act of 1989 and
Section Kha 10 of the Act of 1932 and
notification No. 777/VIII-9-4 (2) (87),
dated July 31 1989 published in the U. P.
Gazette (Extraordinary) Part IV, Section
2nd August, 1989, are held valid.

195. In view of the above
discussion, in my opinion, the answers to
the questions referred to the Full Bench or
permitted to be raised before it, are as
follows :-

(6) Section 10 of the Criminal
Laws Amendment Act, 1932 is valid.

(7)
U,
P.
Government
Notification dated 31-7-1989, making-
offence under Section 506, IPC cognizance
and non-bailable is valid."

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
had an opportunity to consider the similar
notification
issued
by
the
State
of
Maharashtra, wherein similar amendments
were made in Aires Rodrigues Vs.
Vishwajeet
P.
Rane
and
Ors.,
MANU/SC/0078/2017
and
after
considering the above mentioned Full
Bench decision of this Court in Mata
Sewak Upadhyay (supra) has upheld the
Notification issued by the Maharashtra
Government in the light of ratio laid down
in Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra) in
following words:-

"10. It is pointed out by learned
Counsel for the Appellant that a contra
view has been taken by the High Courts
of Gujarat, Delhi, Allahabad and Madras
in Vinod Rao v. The State of Gujarat and
Anr. MANU/GJ/0160/1980 : (1980) 2
GLR 926, Sant Ram v. Delhi State and
Anr. MANU/DE/0250/1980 : 17 (1980)
Delhi Law Times 490, Mata Sewak
Upadhyay and Anr. v. State of U.P. and
Ors. 1995 JIC 1168 (All) (FB), P.
Ramakrishnan v. State rep. by the
Inspector of Police MANU/TN/3760/2010
: 2010-1- LW (Crl.) 848 respectively. He
also pointed out that a different view has
been taken by the High Court of
Allahabad in Pankaj Shukla v. Anirudh
Singh MANU/UP/1084/2011 : 2011 (2)
ADJ 472 without noticing the Full-Bench
decision of the High Court of Allahabad
in Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra).

11. It is not necessary to refer to
all the above judgments. View taken in
support of the notification remaining valid
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and operative in Vinod Rao (supra) is, inter
alia, as follows:

Therefore, applying the rule of
construction laid down in Section 8 of
the General Clauses Act, we must read
in Section 10 of the Criminal Law
Amendment
Act,
1932.
Code
of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in place of
the expression of "Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898". When we so read it,
it becomes clear that the notification
issued Under Section 10 with reference
to Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
should be read as having been issued
with reference to the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973.
So
far
as
the
impugned notification is concerned, it
also refers to the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1898.
The
Rule
of
construction laid down in Section 8 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897 also
requires us to construe reference to the
repealed
enactment
made
in
any
"instrument"
as
reference
to
the
repealing
enactment
or
the
new
enactment which has been brought into
force. The expression 'instrument' used
in Section 8 of the General Clause Act,
1897,
in
our
opinion,
necessarily
includes a notification such as the
impugned
notification.
Therefore,
applying the rule of construction laid
down in Section 8 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897, we read both in
Section
10
of
the
Criminal
Law
Amendment Act, 1932 and in the
impugned
notification
reference
to
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as a
reference
to
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the effect
of the notification issued Under Section
10 in 1937 is to modify the relevant
provisions in the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973.
Therefore,
the
notification of 1937 as well as the
subsequent notification issued in 1970
are relevant to the instant case.

12. Contra view is on lines of the
impugned order relevant part of which has
been reproduced above.

13. We approve the view taken by
the High Courts of Gujarat, Delhi,
Allahabad and Madras in Vinod Rao, Sant
Ram, Mata Sewak Upadhyay & Anr., and
P. Ramakrishnan (supra) and disapprove
the view taken by High Court of Allahabad
in Pankaj Shukla (Supra). "

10. Thus there is no confusion with
regard to the validity of the above
notification dated 31.07.1989, published in
Gazette of date 02.08.1989 issued by the
State Government and the same has been
up held by the Full Bench of this Court in
Mata Sewak Upadhayay (Supra), ratio of
which has also been upheld by Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Aires
Rodrigues
(Supra).

11. The confusion, with regard to the
above notification appears to have surfaced
due to the decision of a Division Bench of
this Court passed in Virendra Singh v.
State
of
U.P.
and
others,
MANU/UP/0455/2000.

12. A coordinate Bench of this Court
in Taiyab Khan and Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. and Ors. MANU/UP/5347/2018
while considering the view of Division
Bench in Virendra (supra) has opined as
under;-

"8. In Virendra Singh (supra) the
court was not called upon to adjudicate
upon the validity of the notification dated
July 31, 1989. The petition was filed
10 All. Lalmani & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
321
against a first information report under
Section 506, I.P.C, however, the court
proceeded to make observations on the
validity
of
the
notification
thereby
declaring Section 506 as non- cognizable
and non-bailable offence. The court made
the following observation in paragraph 8,
which reads thus:

"It is
surprising that while
Sections 323, 324 and 325, I.P.C. are
bailable offences the State Government has
chosen
to
declare
by
this
illegal
notification of 1989 that Section 506, I.P.C.
is a non-bailable and cognizable offence.
This means that if person breaks someone's
hand, or attacks him with a knife on his leg
or hand he will be granted bail by the
police on his mere request, but if he gives a
threat he will be arrested and will have to
apply for bail to the court. This is an
anomalous situation. At any event, we are
of the opinion that the notification dated
31.7.1989 issued under Section 10 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932
making Section 506, I.P.C. cognizable and
non-bailable is illegal."

9. The Division Bench, however,
did not take notice of Mata Sewak (supra)
upholding
the
validity
of
the
notification.........

11.
Full Bench unanimously
upheld the validity of the Government
Notification making Section 506, I.P.C.
cognizable and non-bailable. Decisions
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant including Virendra Singh (supra)
have not noticed the Full Bench decision
rendered in Mata Sewak (supra), it appears
that the decision was not placed nor
brought to the notice of the court. The
decision of the Division Bench and the
subsequent decisions following Virendra
Singh (supra) in my opinion is a per
incuriam and does not lay down the correct
legal position. The decisions rendered in
Praveen Kumar (supra) and Bhagwan
Singh (supra) following Mata Sewak
(supra) lays down the correct law.

12 . In Narmada Bachao Andolan
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another.
MANU/SC/0599/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 1989,
the Supreme Court considered the doctrine
of "Per Incuriam", paragraph 60, reads
thus:

"PER INCURIAM - Doctrine:

'60.
'Incuria'
literally
means
carelessness'. In practice per incuriam is
taken to mean per ignoratium. The courts
have developed this principle in relaxation
of the rule of stare decisis. Thus, the
'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it
is rendered, in ignorance of a statute or
other binding authority. While dealing with
observations made by a seven JudgesBench in India Cement Ltd. etc. etc. v.
State
of
Tamil
Nadu
etc.
etc.,
MANU/SC/0226/1989 : AIR 1990 SC 85,
the five Judges-Bench in State of West
Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and
others, MANU/SC/0038/2004 : (2004) 10
SCC 201 : (AIR 2005 SC 1646 : 2004 AIR
SCW 5998), observed as under:

'A doubtful expression occurring
in a judgment, apparently

by mistake or inadvertence, ought
to be read by assuming

that the court had intended to say
only that which is correct

according to the settled position
of law, and the apparent
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

error should be ignored, far from
making any capital out of

it, giving way to the correct
expression which ought to be

implied or necessarily read in the
context..........A statement

caused
by
an
apparent
typographical or inadvertent error in

a judgment of the court should
not be misunderstood as

declaration of such law by the
court.'

1 3 . Thus, 'per incuriam' are
those decisions which are given in
ignorance
or
forgetfulness
of
some
statutory provision or authority binding on
the court concerned, or a statement of law
caused by inadvertence or conclusions that
have been arrived at without application of
mind or proceeded without any reason so
that in such a case some part of the
decision or some step in the reasoning on
which it is based, is found, on that account
to be demonstrably wrong. It is also wellsettled, if intricacies of relevant provisions
are either not noticed or brought to the
notice of the court or if the view is
expressed without analysing the said
provision or the settled position of law,
such a view cannot be treated as binding
precedent. The Division Bench in Virendra
Singh (supra) did not notice the judgment
of a larger Bench in Mata Sewak (supra)
upholding the validity of the notification
making
offence
under
Section
506
cognizable and non-bailable.

14. In view of the law laid down
in Mata Sewak (supra) followed in Praveen
Kumar
(supra)
and
Bhagwan
Singh
(supra), Section 506 is cognizable and nonbailable and has to be tried as a State case
not as complaint case."

13. I am also in agreement with the
reasoning of Ld. single judge opined in
Taiyab Khan (supra) and unfortunately
the Full Bench decision of this Court
passed in Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra)
was not brought in the knowledge of the
division bench of this Court in Virendra
Singh (supra) and thus in the considered
opinion of this Court in presence of Full
Bench decision of this Court, ratio of which
has already been upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Aires
Rodrigues (Supra) there could not be any
doubt that the view which has been opined
by the Division Bench of this Court in
Virendra Singh (supra) was not the correct
view and thus for all the purposes having
regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Full Bench decision of this Court in Mata
Sewak Upadhyay (supra) Section 506 IPC
is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

14. Coming to the facts of the present
case, the charge sheet has been filed under
Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and as has been
held herein above Section 506 IPC is
cognizable, in the considered opinion of
this Court no illegality has been committed
by the trial court while taking cognizance
of the offences under Section 190 (1) (b)
Cr.P.C.and in adopting the procedure of
trial provided for the cases instituted on
police report submitted under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. and the provisions of
Section 2(d) of Cr. P.C. do not apply to the
present case. Thus the prayer of the
applicant with regard to the quashing of
proceedings and summoning order as well
as charge sheet could not be accepted and
the
same
is
hereby
refused.
10 All. Tarun Kumar Mittal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
323

15. At this juncture learned counsel
for the applicants submits that the instant
dispute is between the close relatives and
there is a chance that the same may be
resolved through settlement, however,
applicants are having apprehension that
when they will appear before the trial court
the disposal of their bail application may
take some time and they may be forced to
remain in prison and having regard to the
spread of Covid-19 pandemic situation, the
same would be detrimental to their health
and may further the strained relations
between the parties.

16. So far as apprehension of the
applicants is concerned the same do not
appear to be founded on sound reasoning as
Hon'ble Apex Court in Hussain and Ors.
Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue
certainn
Guidelines
Regarding
inadequacies
and
deficiencies
in
Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra
Pradesh
and
others,
MANU/SC/0292/2021,have given various
directions
to
criminal
Courts
for
expeditious disposal of Bail applications of
under trials. The ratio of above mentioned
decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as
the personal liberty of a person is at stake,
the bail applications should be decided,
expeditiously.

17. In the backdrop of aforesaid
decisions and keeping in view the entirety
of facts and circumstances of the case and
having regard to the submissions of learned
counsel for the applicants, the application is
disposed of with a direction to the trial
Court that if the applicants appear and
surrender before the Court below within 20
days from today and apply for bail, their
prayer for bail may be considered and
decided expeditiously in accordance with
law.
----------
(2021)10ILR A323
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6319 of 2021

Tarun Kumar Mittal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Virendra Singh

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

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Protection of Women From
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 31 -
Penalty for breach of protection order by
respondent - provisions of Section 31 of
Domestic Violence Act can be invoked for
execution of grant of maintenance order
under Section 12 of D.V. Act. (Para -11)

Interim maintenance was granted in favour of
wife - court below invoked the provisions of
Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act - for
getting its earlier orders passed under section
12 to be executed - aggrieved by order - hence
application under section 482.(Para - 3)

HELD:-
Provisions of Section 31 of Protection
of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005
can be invoked to penalize even breach of
orders passed under Section 12 of the said Act.
(Para - 17 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-