Shahnawaz Ahmed & Anr v. Nahila Begum & Anr

Delhi High Court · 31 Jul 2018 · 2018:DHC:4724
R. K. Gauba
Crl. M.C. 1429/2016
2018:DHC:4724
criminal petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court held that it cannot interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in pending domestic violence proceedings to decide questions of fact, and dismissed the petition challenging orders of the Magistrate and revisional court.

Full Text
Translation output
Crl. M.C. 1429/2016 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st July, 2018
CRL.M.C. 1429/2016 and Crl. M.A. 6075/2016
SHAHNAWAZ AHMED & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Saini, Mohd. Unis, Mohd. Javed and Mr. Imran Kavial, Advocates
VERSUS
NAHILA BEGUM & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sana Ansari and MR. I.
Ahmed, Advocates for R-1 Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners are brothers of Dilnawaz Ahmed, first respondent being his widow. She is residing in a portion of property bearing no.4902, First floor, Bara Hindu Rao claiming it to be her shared household on account of matrimonial relationship. By a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate (case no.92/1/14), she alleges having been subjected to various acts of commission or omission, they constituting domestic violence. She has prayed for various reliefs including restraint order against her possession and enjoyment of the premises in the shared household being interfered and also claiming 2018:DHC:4724 Crl. M.C. 1429/2016 compensation for the harassment meted out to her. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by her order dated 07.07.2014, after perusing the domestic information report found a case made out for issuing notice to the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the revisional court. But the revision petition was dismissed by order dated 15.12.2015.

2. The petition at hand invokes the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC to assail the said order of the two courts below.

3. The questions of fact which are raised concerning the petition under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending consideration before the competent court cannot be addressed by this court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC. The petition is misconceived. The petitioners will have to raise the contentions they urge here before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. With these observations, the petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed. R.K.GAUBA, J. JULY 31, 2018 yg