@ for prudent discussion only
The SC reference which we are talking here is Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 6 (2011) SLT 434 it is annexed in PDF file format.
1. CrPC applies in DV Act
"provisions of Section 468 CrPC that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Section 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15 (6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which makes the provisions of CrPC applicable and stand fortefied" [Para 24]
2. If CrPC applies in DV Act then various Sections of CrPC also gets used in DV Act
3. Now let us take a look at S. 468 CrPC which states as follows;
468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be-
(a) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) One year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
1[(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]
1. Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, Sec. 33 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).
In DV Act 'fine' provision as well as 'Penal provision' is also there under default. Means if you donot comply with Protection order then you are liable for fine as well as Penal provisions. Now from where Penal provisions get attracted in any Act ? It is under CrPC is it not so ! So This SC citation could also be interpreted in this way that DV Act proceedings are governed by CrPC and as per CrPC limitation applies for filing DV Complaint. Now as far as imprisonment is concerned DV Act clearly says follow S. 125 CrPC. Now what does S. 125 CrPC says as per various views of SC and various State HC’s in imprisonment? All says maximum 1 year imprisonment for default is it not so ! So when 'fine' as well as 'imprisonment' gets attracted in DV Act as well as CrPC "procedure wise" then S. 468 CrPC is very much applicable in DV Act for all those "cause of action" be it divorce happened or not or be it if divorce happened then S. 468 CrPC gets applied etc. as people here are interpreting even in Experts section re.
wrongly and or keeping silent in its interpretation.
4. Re. for applicability of CrPC Limitation SC lays laid law in Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762 and Noida Extrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 508
"In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the provisions of the Act 2005 is not compatible XXXX thus, the process amounts to abuse of he process of the Court." [Para 25]
6. Also you should calmly read and understand
which is very important way to interpret one of the DV Act Rules.
I am aware you are intelligent in interpreting Laws which I observed reading your various posts and I am sure if you read calmly above paras and if case is yours and same is explained in above sequence para wise to a Magistrate "Limitation as laid down under CrPC" gets ipso facto applied to all DV Complaint cases which are filed after 1 year from “cause of action”
You must be aware that in Criminal Law we call facts as “cause of action” whereas in Civil case we call same as "Jurisdiction”. But no case can proceed without ‘cause of action” in a Criminal proceedings which is very strict in interpretation.
You should also be able to explain to a Magistrate SC golden Rule on “cause of action” in a Criminal Case while explaining / submitting before a Magistrate why DV Act is not applicable in my case when cause of action is not continuous.
People will say this SC reference which I gave is applicable for people in whose cases they are Divorced but I say it is not only applicable to them but when SC says that DV Act due to reading of its Rules is a “criminal” procedure code applied proceedings then it is for sure that S. 468 CrPC which is “criminal codes Law of Limitation for criminal case” also gets ipso facto applied to DV proceedings as a whole. Though in reference to my quoted SC citation the parties were divorcee which is secondary point of fact while arguing before a Magistrate and yoru facts are different and no two cases facts can ever be the same !. Hence this SC citation which I quoted facts are different than yours but point of Law under para 24 / 25 gets attracted to cases where cause of action is over 1 year old ont he date of filing.
"A agrieved person under criminal jurisprudence does nto take 1 year to wake up and say hey "cause of action is continous andit will remain continous till another 99 years....!!!!"
This is the way citations gets applied is my view and there cannot be ‘exact” citation available as ‘exact facts” differ in every second case. Remove the facts in attached case where divorce happened between parties (so what) but then why did SC took view of S. 498a CrPC and says later in para 25 that "it will amount to abuse of process of court if DV case is run" and there you have the binding Law in hand!
Also tell us....
- can't S. 125 CrPC applies post divorce. ? Yes it can very well.
- does not DV Act says procedure followed in DV is similar to S. 125 CrPC ? yes it does.
- does not DV act says agrieved person lived at any time in a domestic relationship can file DV complaint? yes it does.
So ,now interpret para 24 and para 25 in annexed Judgment and see that SC has not only said limitation applies but in stated case it applies due to divorce between parties but limitation as in CrPC does also apply is also strongly said by SC and they themself referred to two above citations as in para 4. Is it not so clearly reading down it shows?
Tell us what are your counter arguments now if this SC citation affirms Limitation as in under CrPC or not that is first que.?
I am not interested to know if in Oct. she left or in Jan she left ! If she left 1 year ago from the date she is filing a complaint then DV Act is complaint is barred by crPC limitation is my point here (period). Now she divorce or living as married wife or whatever is not continous cause of action.