Quashing of ex-parte order passed by the judicial magistrate in domestic violence case

I want to quash the ex-parte order of Judicial Magistrate passed in my absence. My wife filed a complaint under section 12 of the domestic violence act for various relief. I was in Canada when the incident of domestic violence took place. Consequently, the said complaint is baseless. There is no evidence that I involved in the incident, but my wife, due to mala-fide intention, made me accused therein.

I want to quash the ex-parte order of Judicial Magistrate passed in my absence. My wife filed a complaint under section 12 of the domestic violence act for various relief. I was in Canada when the incident of domestic violence took place. Consequently, the said complaint is baseless. There is no evidence that I involved in the incident, but my wife, due to mala-fide intention, made me accused therein.

Is it possible to obtain a quashing order from the High Court in the current scenario? It is important to note that the lower court passed an ex-parte order on 16/09/2016, which I did not challenge. It should be noted that an ex-parte order has the same effect as a final order if it is not set-aside. In such circumstances, if you wish to initiate any legal proceedings after three years, you must provide a reason for the delay.

Quashing an ex-parte order falls under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives the High Court extraordinary power to provide justice. The Supreme Court has stated in several judgments that this power should be exercised only in exceptional cases. In your case, you have a remedy under The Domestic Violence Act and cannot invoke Section 482 of CRPC.

According to Mohit @ Sonu v. the State of U.P., (2013) 7 SCC 789, "when there is a specific remedy provided by way of appeal or revision, the inherent powers under section 482 cannot be and should not be resorted to."

Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act provides the right to file an appeal against the impugned order of the magistrate, and the limitation period for such appeal is thirty days from the date of order. The ex-parte order is also appealable under Section 29.

Without exhausting this remedy, you cannot file a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the order. The High Court exercises inherent power only if no remedy is available to the petitioner, and his case wants interference of the court for doing justice.

Therefore, you should file an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act along with a prayer for condonation of delay. Since the limitation period for filing an appeal has expired, it is mandatory to file a prayer under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

In State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94, the Supreme Court stated that the court could condone the delay to do substantial justice to parties. There is no presumption that party deliberately occasioned the delay. The court should decide the matters on merits rather than focus on technical faults of parties.

Thus, it is recommended that you file an appeal instead of a quashing petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.

Produce Pendrive as Evidence: Legal Process Explained

Legal experts clarify that digital evidence, such as a pen drive, can be produced even at an advanced stage of a criminal trial under Section 294 of the CrPC. If a trial court rejects such material evidence based on timing, the defendant may challenge the order in the High Court to ensure a fair trial and just adjudication.