Sec. 32 of the DV Act reads as follows:
“Sec. 32: Cognizance and proof.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offence
under sub-section (1) of Section 31 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
(2) Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the Court
may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of Section 31 has been
committed by the accused.”
Sec.31 provides that the above offences are cognizable. Since
the offence under Sec.31 of the DV has been classified as an
cognizable offence as per the provisions of the abovesaid statute, it
cannot be said that the action of the Police in registering the
impugned Anx. A1 crime including the one under Sec. 31 of the DV is
in any manner illegal, improper or ultra vires. Moreover, it has to be
borne in mind that the specific allegations raised by the 2nd
respondent in Anx. A5 petition is that the accused persons had gone
to her residence and uttered obscene words and threatened and
manhandled her, etc. Therefore, the allegations in Anx. A5 petition
would constitute an offence as per Sec. 31 of the DV Act, inasmuch as
it discloses allegations that the petitioners herein, who are the
respondents Anx. A3 interim order in the DV application, have
violated the directives in Anx.A-3 order granted by the jurisdictional
Magistrate's court concerned in DV proceedings. Since the said
offence under Sec. 31 is cognizable and the correctness or otherwise
of the allegations raised in Anx. A5 would require investigation, etc.
no illegality can be attributed in the registering of the impugned Anx.
A-1 crime. Of course there could be some cases, where interim order
could be in the nature of a interim direction to the respondents in the
DV application, not to alienate immovable property , etc. and in such
cases, the allegation that the said interim order in the DV proceedings
not to alienate the above property has been breached by the other
party concerned, may not require much investigation and the same
could be dealt with as a complaint to be filed directly before the
learned Magistrate as it would be very easy to determine the factual
controversy as to whether the immovable property has been alienated
by the execution of the registered deed, etc. by the other party
concerned in breach of the interim order granted in the DV
application. Such is not the nature of the allegation in the instant
case. In the instant case, the allegation in Anx. A5 petition is that the
petitioners had gone to the residence of the 2nd respondent and
threatened and manhandled her, etc. and therefore ordinarily the
matter would require investigation etc. In the light of the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that no illegality
or impropriety has been committed in the registration of the
impugned Anx. A-1 crime.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
Crl.MC.No. 1848 of 2019
PAUL, Vs STATE OF KERALA,
Crl.M.C.No. 1848 of 2019
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2019
