AKSHAY THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 9/2018 dtd. 7/1/2018 registered at the Police Station, Manali District, Kullu for the commission of an offence punishable by Sec. 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) 2005.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant, Pooja Devi, filed an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali (learned Trial Court) asserting that the learned Trial Court had directed the petitioner on 30/6/2017 to provide separate accommodation consisting of one room, one kitchen and one bathroom, compensation of ?10,000 and maintenance of ?4000 per month to the complainant. The petitioner failed to pay the arrears of maintenance and provide the accommodation as per the order. A sum of ?12,000 accrued as arrears of maintenance and compensation of ?10,000 also remained payable. The complainant requested the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance and compensation amount, but the petitioner failed to pay the same. Hence, it was prayed that the action be taken against the petitioner. The learned Trial Court passed an order on 30/12/2017, sending the application to the Station House Officer (SHO) Police Station, Manali under Sec. 156 (3) of CrPC. A direction was also issued to the SHO to submit the status report.

(3.) Being aggrieved from the direction issued by the learned Magistrate and the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR. It has been asserted that the petitioner married the complainant on 20/1/2014. Differences arose between the parties, and the complainant filed a false case under Sec. 12 of the DV Act. The learned Trial Court passed an order of payment of ?10,000 as compensation, maintenance of ?4000 per month as monetary relief, and accommodation. The complainant filed an application before the learned Trial Court, asserting that the petitioner had not complied with the order passed by it. The learned Trial Court sent the application to the police with a direction to register the FIR under Sec. 31 of the DV Act. 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 Sec. 31 of the DV Act. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.