NEW DELHI: Judges are also human and they can make mistakes while judging, Justice Abhay S Oka said Monday while admitting that he committed a mistake in deciding a case as a Bombay HC judge in 2016 relating to interpretation of the Domestic Violence Act and said it was a continuous learning process for judges.
While holding that HCs have jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash proceedings of an application filed under Section 12(1) of DV Act, which says an aggrieved woman may approach a magistrate for relief such as payment of compensation, Justice Oka, who penned the verdict for the bench comprising himself and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, said as an HC judge, he had taken a contrary view on the issue.
SC said that HCs must keep in mind that DV Act is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to women who suffer from domestic violence.
'Even for judges, learning process always continues'
Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the high court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law, the bench said.
Generally, the high court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless high courts show restraint... the very object of enacting the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 will be defeated, the bench added.
Justice Abhay S Oka, who penned the verdict for the bench, said: "Before we part with this judgment, we must mention here that one of us (Abhay S Oka) is a party to a judgment dated Oct 27, 2016, of Bombay high court (HC) in writ petition 2473 of 2016 in which the view taken is that remedy under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not available for quashing the proceedings under Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005."
"This view was found to be incorrect by a full bench of the same high court. As judges, we are duty-bound to correct our mistakes in properly constituted proceedings. Even for judges, the learning process always continues," he said.
"There are decisions of high courts taking a view that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC is not available to quash proceedings... under Section 12(1) of Domestic Violence Act. The decisions are primarily based on the premise that the proceedings... predominantly of a civil nature. The said view is not correct for the reasons set out earlier," Justice Oka said while correcting the orders of high courts and also correcting his stand taken as an HC judge nine years ago.
While holding that HCs have jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash proceedings of an application filed under Section 12(1) of DV Act, which says an aggrieved woman may approach a magistrate for relief such as payment of compensation, Justice Oka, who penned the verdict for the bench comprising himself and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, said as an HC judge, he had taken a contrary view on the issue.
SC said that HCs must keep in mind that DV Act is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to women who suffer from domestic violence.
'Even for judges, learning process always continues'
Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the high court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law, the bench said.
Generally, the high court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless high courts show restraint... the very object of enacting the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 will be defeated, the bench added.
Justice Abhay S Oka, who penned the verdict for the bench, said: "Before we part with this judgment, we must mention here that one of us (Abhay S Oka) is a party to a judgment dated Oct 27, 2016, of Bombay high court (HC) in writ petition 2473 of 2016 in which the view taken is that remedy under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not available for quashing the proceedings under Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005."
"This view was found to be incorrect by a full bench of the same high court. As judges, we are duty-bound to correct our mistakes in properly constituted proceedings. Even for judges, the learning process always continues," he said.
"There are decisions of high courts taking a view that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC is not available to quash proceedings... under Section 12(1) of Domestic Violence Act. The decisions are primarily based on the premise that the proceedings... predominantly of a civil nature. The said view is not correct for the reasons set out earlier," Justice Oka said while correcting the orders of high courts and also correcting his stand taken as an HC judge nine years ago.
You may also like
"Operation Sindoor fulfilled every Indian's desire for justice": Maharashtra Deputy CM Eknath Shinde
Europe's sunniest city is underrated gem - and Brits can get there with £16 flights
Awami League supporters protest at UN, demand end to party ban in Bangladesh
Pollachi Rape Case: An Empowering Verdict
'Misconceived': SC junks pleas by Airtel, Vodafone for waiver of AGR dues
