Skip to main content

Sections 31 and 32 of the impugned Act


Impugned Provision / other Anomaly

Breach of Section / Article


Sections 31 and 32 of the impugned Act


Article 21 of the Constitution of India

SECTION 31: Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent
(1) A breach of protection order, or of any interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) The offence under sub-sec. (1) shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused.
(3) While framing charges under sub-sec. (1), the Magistrate may also frame charges under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961) as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions.

SECTION 32 : Cognizance and proof
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) the offence under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 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-sec. (1) of Sec. 31 has been committed by the accused.


Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.


The Argument


1.      The bare reading of the mandate contained in sections 31 and 32 of the impugned Act, is appalling and would shock the conscience of any prudent man.

2.      Section 31 mandates that Breach of protection Order or interim protection Order, passed would constitute a Criminal offence, is a phenomenon unheard of in any jurisprudence.

3.      Even in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the law does not regard the alleged acts of breach of the Order of the Court, as a Criminal offence, and is judicially ascertained as quasi criminal offence, and is tried as such, wherein the alleged contemnor may even tender an unconditional apology to the High Court and the Court may discharge the contemnor. Further, it is a Public Policy of India that lower courts do not have a power to punish for breach of their Orders, and such prerogative jurisdiction is conferred upon the Higher Courts only, the High Courts and Supreme Court.

4.      Further, whereas the expression “domestic violence” itself is inherently and characteristically vague and ambiguous, as argued hitherto, any Order passed, thereby prohibiting the Respondent from committing any further “domestic violence”, would also be vague and ambiguous. The Respondent may be left to ponder “what to comply with”; The Respondent may be left wondering how he should organize his conduct so as to comply with the Order of the Court.

5.      Nevertheless, given the patently ambiguous nature of Order which would be passed, the aggrieved person can always allege that the Order of the Court is not complied with; and the Respondent thereby makes him subject to criminal prosecution for non-compliance of the Order of the Court.

6.      As argued earlier in respect of the inherent ambiguities in definition of the expression domestic violence, the Order, any passed u/s 18, inter alia, thereby restraining the Respondents from committing acts of “domestic violence”, would continue to be perplexing for the Respondents, for, the Applicant, like the original complaint u/s 12, can always allege the breach of the Orders of the Court u/s 31, without stating any material facts, constituting the breach of the Order of the Court.

7.      “Notice” is a sine qua non in any criminal offence. It would never be known to the Respondent as what kind of conduct or behaviour is expected from him / her; or to say, what kinds of acts should be omitted to be done, so as to avoid the rigour of “domestic violence”. In fact, every act and omission of the person may be conveniently labelled as “domestic violence”, and so is the breach of the Order of the Court.

8.      Most shockingly, whereas the alleged breach of the protection Order is made a criminal offence, the impugned section obviates the necessity of the concerned Magistrate to satisfy himself as to the truthfulness of the allegation of breach of Order, and the law contemplate that the solemn words, are flowing from the Applicant / Protection officer. It is submitted that even in the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court, before subjecting the alleged contemnor to the rigours of contempt proceeding, satisfy itself to the veracity of the allegation made in the contempt petition.

9.      And further jeopardizing the life and liberty of the Respondent, the mandate of section 32 would shock our sense of justice, where the non-compliance to Orders passed under this Act is made a Non bailable offence, which is irrational, disproportionate and excessive. It may be noted that offences of Rioting (S.147 IPC), causing death by rash or negligent act (S.304A IPC),, voluntary causing grievous hurt (S.325 IPC), Criminal intimidation (S.506 IPC), Forgery (S.465 IPC), Criminal trespass (S.447 IPC), Mischief (S.426 to 435 and 440 IPC), Cheating (S.417, 418, 419 IPC) are a Bailable offence.

10.  Whereas Section 32(2) empowers the Magistrate to conclude the guilt of the Accused on the sole testimony of the Applicant, the mandate is inconsistent with Explanation II appended to Section 3 of the impugned Act mandates that for the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.

11.  There is one more serious infirmity in the mandate of law contained in section 31 wherein provides it provides that the breach of the protection Order shall be an offence under the impugned Act.

a)      Any inquiry into the alleged commission of an offence must begin with the contemplation in our mind, the definition of “offence” as contained in General Clauses Act, 1897.

b)      Section 3(38) of the said Act defines it as "offence" shall mean any “act or omission” made punishable by any law for the time being in force”. The definition is quite simple to apt and does not require any elaboration.

c)      The word “act or omission” is defined in the said Act in section 3(2) as –"act", used with reference to an offence or a civil wrong, shall include a series of acts, and words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions. This definition is also simple enough to apt, with suffice to say, that “specific act and / or omissions” attributed towards the person, would make the person liable for his alleged act and / or omissions, and mere allegations, suspicion and speculation are of no use to initiate any action in law, against any person.

d)     It is submitted that, therefore, in any case of allegation of commission of an offence, the complainant has to assert and attribute certain acts and omissions which are alleged to have been committed by the person, where those acts and omissions constitute an offence under the law.

e)      Moving little further, the alleged acts and omissions attributed towards any person, constitutes the material facts of the prosecution case; and to bring home, the guilt of the person concerned, it is suffice, if the existence of said material facts are “proved” by the prosecution, while employing the principles spelled out in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with the means of procedure, prescribed under code of criminal procedure, 1973.  The definition of “facts”, “facts in issue”, “proved” disproved” and “not proved” in the Evidence Act, assumes greatest significance in any trial.

f)       The Ld. Magistrate would thereafter, while taking cognizance of the offence u/s 200 would prima facie satisfy him as to the veracity of the said alleged “acts and omissions”, and then will issue Summons / Warrant against the accused person.

g)      The prosecution thereafter, is obliged to lead evidence (of “facts in issue” and “relevant facts”) about the existence of the said acts and omissions, and would be then subjected to the cross examination;

h)      And thereafter, after recording of Statement of the Accused u/s 313 of CrPC, 1973, the accused may lead his evidence and subject him for cross examination;

i)        And thereafter the Ld. Magistrate would record his finding as to (a) whether the acts and omissions alleged, are proved; and (b) whether the said proved acts and omissions, constitute the “ingredient” of the offence charged with.

j)        Therefore, it may be noted that, (a) recording a “finding” as to the proving of certain “acts and omissions” and (b) recoding a finding that those proved “acts and omissions” constitutes “ingredient of the offence”, is the prerogative of the Magistrate.

k)      The province of the Applicant is to allege acts and omissions of the concerned Respondent, and it is absurd and unimaginable if the Applicant would record a “finding” in his complaint that Respondent has inflicted “hurt” or has “insulted” or has inflicted economic, sexual, emotional or verbal abuse”. The Applicant has to state “acts and omissions” of the Respondent which would constitute “hurt” “insult” economic, sexual, emotional or verbal abuse” etc.

l)        In the instant case, as we have seen, there is no warrant for the Applicant to set out any material facts constituting the act of “domestic violence”. What is required under the impugned law is to allege the nature of “domestic violence” being committed by the Respondent; and the Reliefs sought from the Court. Even the Domestic Incident Report prepared by the Protection officer in the prescribed Form I does not contemplate recording of any facts in issue or relevant facts, constituting “domestic violence”.

m)    It is strange, how the Magistrate would ever proceed with the trial in the absence of any material facts on record.

12.  Further, the said provisions overlooks the fact that if at all the Respondent is sent to judicial custody /jail for breach of protection Order, the maintenance Order if any passed u/s 20 and / or the compensation Order, if any passed u/s 22, against the Respondent may become futile, thereby frustrating the interest of the aggrieved person.

13.  GRIMWOOD MEARS, a High Court Judge in Allahabad High Court, in a introductory passage to authoritative Mogha’s pleading , in the year 1926, said, which is even to a great extent stand true, “ inter alia, I confess that when I came herein 1919, nothing shocked me more than the abusive, irrelevant and reckless statements in pleadings and failure of sub-ordinate judges to exercise any control over them. Unfounded charges of fraud, intentional mis-statement, reckless justification, failure to give particulars etc.

14.  There is no worse than the torture of laws.  Ambiguous penal laws are traps for extorting money. A good deal of tyranny goes in the name of protection. At the most fundamental level, the procedural due process embodies the importance of fair pre-deprivation procedures; Liberty is too priceless, however, the impugned provisions makes nonsense of the ordered liberty of the mankind, and offends sense of justice; A danger cannot be overstated.

15.  Article 21 of the Constitution of India commands that “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty” except according to the procedure established by law. In Criminal jurisprudence, the only safeguard available to an innocent person is the “scrupulous and strict adherence” to the procedure prescribed in concluding the “guilt of the accused person”.

16.  The proposition employed in sections 31 and 32 is mind blowing absurd and is unheard of in the body of our jurisprudence. The said provision is extremely callous and shamelessly mutilates the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

17.  It is wondering how Parliament of` our Country can be oblivious to the patent Constitutional dictates of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and how they can provide and justify for such an absurd set of provisions.


Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.

Law Referencer: https://www.litigationplatform.com/


Thank you.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Commercial Courts / Suits - Pleadings and Procedure

The Commercial Courts, Act, 2015 – A broad framework In order to ensure speedy disposal of disputes which arises from commercial transactions involving high value, the Parliament of India has come out with a unique legislation namely, The Commercial Courts, Act, 2015; wherein Commercial Courts / Divisions are to be constituted in the existing district Courts and in High Courts; and wherein disputes arising from specified commercial dealings involving claim of Rs.1.00 Crore or above would be adjudicated by these newly constituted commercial Courts / Divisions. By virtue of recent Amendments, the limit of Rs.1.00 crore has been reduced to Rs.3.00 Lakhs; and accordingly claims relating to commercial disputes involving Rs.3.00 Lakhs could now be maintainable under this special regime.  And accordingly, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is substantially amended, wherein new Order XIII-A and XV-A are inserted, apart from new Order XI, Sections 35 for costs, Verification of Plea

Leading Evidence during trial

1.       In case where the accused refused to plead guilty of the offence to which he is charged with, and claims to be tried, the Court calls upon the Prosecution / Complainant to lead all the evidences he has in support of his case. 2.       In criminal trial, the evidence are required to be led by the complainant and / or their witnesses by stepping into the witness box and illustrating / demonstrating to what they have witnessed. The Complainant is to examine before the Court, himself, and all other witnesses, who are “witness” to the crime, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused named in the complaint. This examination of himself and other prosecution witnesses is called “Examination – in – Chief. 3.       Giving evidence of facts is critical to any trial, be it civil trial or criminal trial. And therefore, it becomes imperative to understand the dynamics of evidence in legal sense. To put it simply, leading / giving evidence means, proving the exis

Form II under Rule 6 of Rules, 2006, framed under the impugned Act

Impugned Provision / other anomaly Breach of Section / Article FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the impugned Act Section 3 – Explanation II; Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the impugned Act. Principles of natural justice. FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)     To The Court of Magistrate .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Application under section ........................ of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)            SHOWETH: That the application under section.................of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is being filed along with a copy of Domestic Incident Report by the: