Dr.T.Rajasekaran, Age-48 Yrs v. The Protection Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.134 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1459 and 1460 of 2017 Dr.T.Rajasekaran S/o.TSS.Thirugnanasambadam .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Protection Officer, Domestic Violence Act, District Social Welfare Officer, District Collectors Office Complex, Singaravelar Maligai, 8th Floor, Chennai - 600 001.
2.Dr.R.Poonguzhali .. Respondents Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.18383 of 2016 on 11.01.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar *****
O R D E R
This revision arises against the order of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, passed in Crl.M.P.No.18383 of 2016 on 11.01.2017.
2. Petitioner and second respondent are husband and wife. Second respondent/wife moved a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner/husband seeking protection order, maintenance and damages and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.2463 of 2015 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. Therein, petitioner/husband moved Crl.M.P.No.1336 of 2016 under section 239 Cr.P.C. Court below, under orders dated 18.03.2016, dismissed such petition observing that no charge has been framed in the case and therefore, the petition u/s.239 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. Against such order, petitioner/husband moved an appeal with a petition seeking condonation of delay of 90 days. Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed such petition. Hence, this revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. In dismissing the petition, Court below has informed that provisions of Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable only if any offence is committed
which should be tried as a Warrant Case. In the instant case, no offence has been committed and the petition has been filed only under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Further, Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is the only provision for punishment for breach of protection order and offence is triable under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. The present is not a case of breach of protection order and the petition has been filed u/s.18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and hence, petition u/s.239 or 245(2) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Informing that as the appeal itself was not maintainable, the question of entertaining the petition seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal does not arise, Court below has dismissed the petition as not maintainable. This Court finds no error in the order under challenge.
The Criminal Revision case is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.02.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm To The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
C.T. SELVAM, J gm Crl.R.C.No.134 of 2017 01.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in