Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2886 of 2018 Revisionist :- Shiv Prakash Tiwari And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamal Dev Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Kamal Dev Rai, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Court No.1, Etawah in Complaint Case No.213 of 2013 (Shivangi vs. Surya Kant Tiwari and others), under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Lavedi, District Etawah whereby summons have been issued to the present revisionist to try the case. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Court No.2, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2016 (Shiv Prakash Tiwari and others vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby the aforesaid Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 against the order dated 03.05.2016, has been dismissed.
From the record it appears that on an application filed by the opposite party No.2 in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 2005, the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 18.10.2013 allowed the same by issuing the directions relatable to Sections 12 and 18 of the Act of 2005. It is the case of the opposite party No.2 that the said order dated 08.10.2013 has not been complied with and consequently, she filed an application under Section 31 of the Act of 2005 which provides that the remedy for breach of a protection order. This application came to be registered as Complaint Case No.213 of 2013 (Shivangi vs. Surya Kant Tiwari and others), in which, the present applicants have been summoned by means of order dated 03.05.2016.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the present revisionists filed an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Etawah, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2016 (Shiv Prakash Tiwari and others vs.
State of U.P. and another). The said Criminal Appeal has been dismissed by means of the order dated 11.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved the revisionists have now come to this Court by means of the present Criminal Revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the order dated 19.10.2013 is binding only upon Surya Kant Tiwari and fresh summoning of the present revisionists in Complaint Case No.213 of 2013, under Section 31 of the Act of 2005 is patently illegal.
The arguments before this Court is wholly misconceived. Admittedly, vide order dated 08.10.2013 benefit was extended in favour of the complainant, that is, the opposite party No.2 herein in terms of Section 18 as well as Section 12 of the Act of 2005. Therefore, in the case of the breach of the protection order granted by the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 08.10.2013, the initiation of the proceedings under Section 31 of the Act by the opposite party No.2 cannot be faulted with.
For the reasons given herein above, no occasion arises before this Court to entertain this Criminal Revision. The Criminal Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018 cks