DV and section 20B, Section 91 of Cr.P.C

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 1183 of 2010

Smt. Ruchi Grover
W/o Shri Amit Grover
D/o Shri V.P. Chhabra,
R/o19/6, Rajpur Road, Dehradun
District Dehradun .. Petitioner

Versus

1. Amit Grover,
S/o Shri G.P. Grover
R/o C-784, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.

2. G.P. Grover,
/o Shri Mulak Raj
R/o C-784, Vikaspuri, New Delhi …. Respondents

Shri Pawan Mishra, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Chauhan , Advocate, present for the respondents .

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Heard.

2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.11.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/6th Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in criminal appeal no. 87 of 2010, whereby said court 2

has set aside the order dated 09.08.2010, passed by the trial court, and directed the petitioner to file the documents under section 91 of Cr.P.C., as prayed in application 20B, before the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the present petitioner filed the complaint under sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging that she has been subjected to cruelty , and the respondent (Amit Grover)has neglected her to maintain.

4. By moving application under section 20B before the trial court under section 91 of Cr.P.C., (copy of which Annex. 2 to the petition) the respondents have sought direction of the court to the complainant to file statements of her two PPF accounts (one at Delhi, and another at Dehradun), details of her balances in savings account with State Bank of India, and Centurion Bank of Punjab, and also sought to get filed details of fixed deposit receipts in the aforesaid two Banks. The accounts no. are specifically disclosed in the application.

READ  Whether Advocate can be prosecuted for giving wrong search report to bank?

5. Since, the petitioner has also sought direction from the Magistrate under section 20 of 3

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which relates to monitary reliefs, the direction by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 19.11.2010, cannot be said to be illegal.

6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily.

(Prafulla C.Pant,J.)

07.12.2010

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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