Domestic violence Act -proceeding which is already decided can not be quashed

  In the first place, it 
may   be     stated   here   that   the   Criminal   Case   No.23/2008       under 
Protection of  Women from Domestic Violence Act,  had been decided on 
15th  November,  2011   i.e.   before   filing   of   the   present   Application.   An 
Appeal has been filed before the Sessions Court against  the judgment of 
trial Court.    Since the statutory Appeal is pending before the Appellate 
Authority,  the prayer clause (i)  is totally misconceived.  It is   beyond 
comprehension as to   how the     proceedings which have been already 
decided  can be  quashed   u/s. 482  of  Cr.P
.C.. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL  APPLICATION  (APL) NO.   360/2012
Gajananappa  s/o Chindhappa  Sarjane
   
v e r s u s
Smt.Sheela  wd/o  Nitianappa Sarjane



CORAM:   M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.

DATE OF  PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.7.2013



Admitted.    Heard finally by  consent  of both the learned 
counsel.  
This is an Application under Section 482 of the Criminal 
2.
ig
Procedure Code for quashing  the proceedings bearing  Misc. Cri. Case 
No. 23/2008     of   the Court of Judicial Magistrate,   First Class,   Akot 
and the interim order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge   on 
23rd April, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2012.    In the first place, it 
may   be     stated   here   that   the   Criminal   Case   No.23/2008       under 
Protection of  Women from Domestic Violence Act,  had been decided on 
15th  November,  2011   i.e.   before   filing   of   the   present   Application.   An 
Appeal has been filed before the Sessions Court against  the judgment of 
trial Court.    Since the statutory Appeal is pending before the Appellate 
Authority,  the prayer clause (i)  is totally misconceived.  It is   beyond 
comprehension as to   how the     proceedings which have been already 
decided  can be  quashed   u/s. 482  of  Cr.P
.C..    As  far as prayer clause 
(ii)  is concerned, I have gone through the order of the Addl. Sessions 
Judge  dated 23rd April, 2012.  The learned Addl.Sessions Judge,  while 

passing the interim order, had  stayed a  major portion of the order of 
the learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.23/2008. Even  the 
rest   of   the   order   has   been   modified   to   such   an   extent   that   it   has 
benefitted the applicants.   I do not find  any scope for interfering  with 

the said order. The Application is without  merit and is  dismissed.

Print Page