- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Order dated 24.10.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruption) First, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2016 (Rajesh Kumar Chaudhari Versus State of U.P. & another) and Order dated 10.8.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Varanasi in Case No.2558 of 2012 (Sarita Versus Rajesh Chaudhari & others) under Sections 12/16/19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are under challenge in this revision, by which Objection of the revisionist in regard to limitation has been rejected by the courts below.
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that objection raised at initial stage on behalf of the revisionist before the Magistrate concerned was illegally rejected. Cognizance in the proceedings under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In Short the 'Act') could only be taken within a year, as has been provided under section 468 Cr.P.C. Order passed on the application moved by the revisionist before the Magistrate concerned was also challenged before the concerned Sessions Judge in the Appeal, which was also dismissed on insufficient ground. At this juncture, learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases : 1. Inderjit Singh Grewal Versus State of Punjab and Another, (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 588 2. Japani Sahoo Versus Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 394 3. Sarah Mathew Versus Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 62 In rebuttal, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist and submitted that objection raised by the revisionist respondent was legally rejected, as the provisions of section 468 Cr.P.C. would be applicable when a breach is committed in complying the protection order passed on the application under section 12 of the Act, as has been defined under sections 31 and 32 of the Act. Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below.
(3.) I have carefully gone through the entire record including the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist.;