1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.86/2011 Tej Singh versus Smt.
Padam Kanwar Date of Order :: 09.01.2014 HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Mr.Vineet Jain, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Udawat, for the respondent.
<><><> Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
(Oral).This is the criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C.against the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali HQ Jaitaran, District Pali in Criminal Appeal No.11/2010 whereby he has set aside the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Barr and has remanded the matter back to the trial court for consideration afresh.
The facts in short are that the respondent had filed an application before the trial court on 21.8.2009 under Section 12 read with Sections 18.19,20 and 22 of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The petitioner was summoned in the same.
Aggrieved, he moved an application before the Court praying that no cognizance can be taken under the said Act as the Act was enacted in the year 2005 and made 2 effective in the year 2006 whereas the present application was moved on 21.8.2009.
Accordingly, the application under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed by the trial court.
The respondent filed appeal before the appellate Court.
The appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.
Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed.
This Court vide order dated 9.2.2011 admitted the revision petition and stayed the proceedings pending before the trial court.
Meanwhile, the issue with respect to the maintainability of the application under Section 12 with retrospective effect has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Saraswathy versus Babu in Criminal Appeal No.1999 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2190 of 2012) decided on 25.11.2013 and also Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sabana (Smt.) @ Chand Bai and Anr.
versus Mohd.
Talib Ali and Anr.
In D.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.362/2011 decided on 30.10.2013.
In view of the settled proposition of law, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press the present revision petition on this ground and therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the same with liberty to file fresh objections before the trial court on merits.
While deciding the earlier application, the merits were not taken into consideration either by the trial court or by the appellate Court.
The prayer is justified.
3 In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
The orders dated 3.12.2010 and 29.4.2010 are set aside with liberty that in case the petitioner moves an appropriate application raising objections on merits within a period of three weeks from today, the trial court shall decide the same afresh after hearing both the parties in accordance with law.
The petitioner will be at liberty to avail of any other remedy available to him in law.
However, the liberty to file objections before the trial court as granted or the other alternative remedy, if available will not be availed simultaneously.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR).J.
praveen