LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

FightForCause (Businessman)     29 January 2014

Section 468 crpc in dv act

Hi Experts,

DV Case on me after 23 months of seperation.

Section 28 of DV act quotes "Procedure .-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by theprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."

Can i now use CrPC 468  to argue case is not tenable as case max should have been registered in max 1 year.

 

Section 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;

 

Domestic violence case is registered after 23 months of the domestic relationship came to an end ie filed after the expiry of the period of limitation thus not tenable.

 

Note : Court Date is on 31st Jan 2014.

 

 

 



 12 Replies

yogesh (will tell you later)     29 January 2014

RAISE THE ISSUE OF Limitation before the trial court..I raise it before the HC and SCI by citing Inderkumar Grewal case but it was summarily dismmissed..


(Guest)

@yogesh.....you objection was dismissed or her DV got dismissed?

yogesh (will tell you later)     30 January 2014

No In inder kumar grewal case section of 468 Crpc was raised for quashing of the summoning order passed by the Ld MAGISTRATE and relief was granted to the party..I too raise the same issue before the HC on the grounds of Limitation which was dismiised and the SLP was also dismiised before the SCI for quashing of the summoning order..despite of aapplying the principles of the case

Samir N (2HelpU) (Business)     30 January 2014

@Yogesh... I am surprised. Can you provide some citations on your case or the case number of the SLP opinion of the SC? I used to participate actively in this forum but do visit occasionally. 

The reason I say so is because the SC cannot change the law. The circumstances/facts  of your case must be different. They may have dismissed your application on some other grounds.

LEGAL-CIVIL CRIMINAL (SENIOR ADVUCATE. skjadvt@gmail.com)     13 March 2014

The main issue in this thread is limitation u/s 468 of CRPC.

 

Please explain in detail for benefit of all that what is the maximum punishment ifn DV ACT and so how this section is bar after 23 months.

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com)     13 March 2014

Originally posted by : FightForCause


Hi Experts,

DV Case on me after 23 months of seperation.

Section 28 of DV act quotes "Procedure .-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by theprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."

Can i now use CrPC 468  to argue case is not tenable as case max should have been registered in max 1 year.

 

Section 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;

 

Domestic violence case is registered after 23 months of the domestic relationship came to an end ie filed after the expiry of the period of limitation thus not tenable.

 

Note : Court Date is on 31st Jan 2014.

 

What happened on this date. You have dug  out a very good provision.


Even otherwise there is a recent BOMBAY HIGH COURT citation for rejection of DV case due to delay.

 

 


FightForCause (Businessman)     15 March 2014

Though i am all ready to  use this provision and argue in court , my Ld advocate is not ready for same and not giving proper reason of denial.

This may be new for him too.

SANTOSHSINGH. (ADVOCATE sardarsena@gmail.com)     19 March 2014

The provisions of DV ACT and crpc 125 are over lapping and  it is essential to have them examined by higher courts.

 

Petition u/s 395 in lower court or writ in higher courts is solution.

 

Those who are  facing more hardships due to such multiple cases are welcome to join.

yogesh (will tell you later)     19 March 2014

Samir..I do agree

But yoiu have to believe me what I have said I filed theLP before the supreme court of India and in the listing profrma I specifically mentioned the case of Inder kUmar Grewal Vs Stte of Punjab citation as similar case disposed of

But during the course of hearing, "the Hon'ble bench Burst on me they stated saying that Justcic chauhan has pronounced the order and the contenst are quite differnt and where its mentioned about the limitation..Its was differnt case purely that divorce has tken place by fraud"

My SLP was summarily dismissed

 

yogesh (will tell you later)     19 March 2014

Samir..I do agree

But yoiu have to believe me what I have said I filed theLP before the supreme court of India and in the listing profrma I specifically mentioned the case of Inder kUmar Grewal Vs Stte of Punjab citation as similar case disposed of

But during the course of hearing, "the Hon'ble bench Burst on me they stated saying that Justcic chauhan has pronounced the order and the contenst are quite differnt and where its mentioned about the limitation..Its was differnt case purely that divorce has tken place by fraud"

My SLP was summarily dismissed

yogesh (will tell you later)     19 March 2014

Samir..I do agree

But yoiu have to believe me what I have said I filed theLP before the supreme court of India and in the listing profrma I specifically mentioned the case of Inder kUmar Grewal Vs Stte of Punjab citation as similar case disposed of

But during the course of hearing, "the Hon'ble bench Burst on me they stated saying that Justcic chauhan has pronounced the order and the contenst are quite differnt and where its mentioned about the limitation..Its was differnt case purely that divorce has tken place by fraud"

My SLP was summarily dismissed

Abhishek4002   19 June 2018

In my case, my wife deserted me in June 2016 (Left Mumbai). In Sept 2016, she filed CrPc 125 (in Ahmedabad). She got uset with interim judgement. Later in May 2018, she filed DV against my entire family (after 22 months of seperation). 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query