Introduction:

In the case of Sachin Gaur v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed a pivotal procedural question under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The petitioner, Sachin Gaur, challenged an order from the Mahila Court that permitted the complainant’s father to submit his examination-in-chief via an affidavit. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the matter, ultimately upholding the trial court’s decision and clarifying the procedural nuances of the DV Act.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner contended that proceedings under the DV Act are criminal, necessitating strict adherence to criminal procedural norms. He argued that allowing examination-in-chief through affidavits undermines the sanctity of criminal trials, where oral testimony and cross-examination are fundamental. The petitioner emphasized that such a practice could compromise the accused’s right to a fair trial, as it deviates from the traditional method of recording evidence in person.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The respondents, representing the complainant, argued that the DV Act primarily provides civil remedies, even though it operates within the framework of criminal courts. They asserted that the Act’s objective is to offer immediate and effective relief to victims of domestic violence, and thus, procedural flexibility is essential. Allowing affidavits for examination-in-chief expedites the process, reduces the burden on courts, and aligns with the civil nature of the reliefs sought under the Act.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her judgment, emphasized that the DV Act, while enacted under the criminal law framework, primarily offers civil remedies such as protection orders, residence orders, and monetary reliefs. She noted that the criminal provisions are invoked only when there is a breach of these civil orders. Therefore, the procedural aspects of the Act should align more closely with civil proceedings.

The Court held that recording examination-in-chief through affidavits is permissible in DV Act proceedings. This approach is consistent with civil procedural norms and facilitates a more efficient adjudication process. Justice Krishna highlighted that this method does not prejudice the rights of the accused, as the opportunity for cross-examination remains intact. She further clarified that the use of affidavits in such contexts is not only legally sound but also practical, considering the volume and nature of cases under the DV Act.

By dismissing the petition, the Delhi High Court reinforced the understanding that DV Act proceedings, though situated within criminal courts, are civil. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural adaptability to ensure timely and effective relief for victims of domestic violence.