“Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed because they deprive a citizen of his life and liberty, and no act, which does not fall within the purview of the criminal statute, can be added to it by way of interpretation” - HC
While quashing the FIR registered for the breach of monetary order passed under Domestic Violence Act, the Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that breach of maintenance, compensation, and residence orders do not fall within the definition of a protection order, and hence not punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act.
Brief Facts:
The matter arose from a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station, Manali Police Station, for an offence punishable under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “DV ACT”). The petitioner was accused of failing to comply with a Trial Court’s order by not paying arrears of maintenance and not providing accommodation to his complainant wife. Praying that maintenance, compensation, and residence orders do not fall within the definition of a protection order, and only the violation of a protection order is punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act, the petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Relying on the decisions in C.D. Ravindernath & Ors. v. Srilatha & Ors. (2023) and Mohammed Yaseen Naikwadi v. Aneesa Mohammed Yaseen Naikwadi & Ors. (2023), the counsel for petitioner contended that the Magistrate had erred in forwarding the application to the police for registering an FIR. It was submitted that the violation of a monetary order does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 31 of the DV ACT, which applies only to breaches of protection orders.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 31 of the DV ACT, must be construed liberally to advance the object of the legislation and ensure protection for women. It was contended that the violation of a monetary order also falls within the scope of Section 31. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observation of the Court:
The Court referred to Section 31 of the DV Act to clarify that penalty for breach of a protection order, only penalises the breach of a protection order or an interim protection order.
The Court also emphasized that Section 31 of the DV Act only talks about breach of protection orders under Section 18, and does not talk about residence orders mentioned in Section 19, monetary reliefs mentioned in Section 20, custody orders mentioned in Section 21, and compensation orders mentioned in Section 22 of the said Act.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla also underscored that the monetary relief which is separately provided in Section 2 (k) of the DV Act cannot be added to the protection order separately provided in Sections 2 (o) and 18 of the DV Act by plain meaning.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the petition, the High Court held that the Magistrate erred in referring the application to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC, and the police could not have registered the FIR for the breach of the monetary order.
Case Title: Akshay Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and others
Case No: Cr. MMO No. 1079 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Aprajita and Adv. Ajay Thakur
Advocate for Respondent: Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General
Picture Source :
