AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.C. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. State respondent
No. 2, being a formal party, has not advanced any argument.
2) This present petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, has been filed seeking quashment of the proceeding of Misc (DV) Case No. 40/2016, and the order,
dated 28.7.2016, passed in the said case, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Golaghat, issuing process to the petitioners and granting
an order of protection in favour of the respondent No. 1.
3) The aforesaid DV case was initiated on the basis of an application filed by the respondent, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
4) During the course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that, although the proceeding in the Misc
(DV) Case No. 40/2016, and order passed therein, on 28.7.2016, have been sought to be quashed, yet, recording of evidence in the said case has
already been completed and the matter has been posted for hearing argument.
5) Such submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has been subscribed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also.
6) The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that, if the materials coming out in the evidence on record is perused by this court, it will
find that there is no materials against the petitioners.
7) It has further been submitted that only with a view to obtain the protection order, the proceeding was initiated by the respondent No. 2 so that with
the help of the protection order, she could join as a teacher in the school which is situated in the same campus where the respondent No. 2 & 3 are
also teachers.
8) There are some other allegations in the petition before the learned trial court on the basis of which the proceeding was initiated.
9) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in fact, there is no domestic violence involved in the case, and therefore, the proceeding
before the learned trial court ought not to have been continued and summons ought not to have been issued. He has also submitted about the delay in
filing the complaint before the learned trial court. In view of the fact that the proceeding has been at the last stage of culmination, i.e. at the stage of
argument and as the facts brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of his submission, as referred to above,
could not be considered by this court as those are all matter of facts and this court cannot make a roving enquiry into the question of facts sitting over
an application under Section 482 Cr.PC.
10) Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction that whatever submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as
indicated above, before this court, shall be taken into consideration by the learned trial court while disposing of the matter.
11) However, it does not mean that the present petitioners are restrained from making any other submission in addition to the above. They will be at
liberty to make any other submission apart from those.
12) With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.