NAVEEN Vs. RAJNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 24/09/2008 passed by JMFC, Indore in criminal case No. 02/2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for quashment of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 9 and 37 of Protection of Women From domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act No. 43 of 2005) (which shall be referred hereinafter as "act of 2005"), the present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent is the wife of petitioner No. 1. while the petitioner No. 2 is the father of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 is cousin brother of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 is uncle of petitioner No. 1 while petitioner No. 5 is son of the petitioner No. 4. A complaint was lodged by the respondent against the petitioners on 08/10/2006 for the offence punishable under section 9 and 37 of the Act of 2005 alleging that the respondent is the wife of petitioner No. 1 whose marriage was solemnized with petitioner No. 1 on 12/11/ 2005. In the complaint it was alleged that respondent was subjected to violation by the petitioners between 12/11/2005 to 06/06/2006 when the respondent lived with the petitioner No. 1 in the matrimonial house. In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioners have committed the offence which is punishable under Section 9 and 37 of the Act of 2005, hence the petitioners be convicted. After taking cognizance of the offence, notices were issued to the petitioners. After making the appearance by the petitioners, an application was filed by them wherein it was prayed that the complaint filed by the respondent be dismissed as the allegeq offence is between 12/11/2005 to 06/06/2006 while the Act came in force with effect from 26/10/2006. It was alleged that since the Act itself was not in force on the relevant date, therefore, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. The application was opposed by the respondent. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submit that the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is illegal and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that on the date of offence the Act was not in force. It is submitted that the Act came in force on 26/10/2006 while the total period when the alleged offence was committed was between 12/11/2005 to 06/06/2006. It is also submitted that in view of this the learned trial Court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt Ganga Bai 1991 (1) MPWN sn 117 wherein while considering the impact of Section 92-A of Motor Vehicles act this Court observed that Section 92-A is not retrospective in its operation and will not apply to pending cases. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners be dropped.