498A and DV is not allowed for same Cause

Ref : http://mynation.net/docs/1-2009

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit in his argument that the first respondent’s husband was not included as respondent and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are liable to be proceeded under the provisions of the said Act. The said inclusion of female members, as the relatives of the husband, as respondents, is not sustainable under Section 2(q) of the Act. He would further submit that the allegations said to have been made against the petitioners in Form-I under the Act, are not adequate, to take cognizance and on the face of it, the offence against the petitioners pertaining to the 3 days’ cause of action viz., 26.04.2008, 30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 are not sustainable and admittedly, on 09.05.2008, a complaint has been already lodged before the Police, North Police Station, Dindgul Town, Dindigul, and the Police have also given the receipt in C.S.R.No.128 of 2008. Now, the very same cause of action, has been repeated here and it would amount to ‘double jeopardy’ against the petitioners.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!