Introduction:

In the case of Akshay Thakur v. State of H.P. & Ors. (Cr.MMO No. 1079 of 2024), the Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed the applicability of Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 31, arguing that the alleged non-compliance pertained to maintenance and residence orders, not protection orders.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner contended that Section 31 of the DV Act specifically penalizes the breach of protection orders issued under Section 18 of the Act. He argued that maintenance and residence orders, issued under Sections 19 and 20 respectively, do not fall within the ambit of Section 31. Therefore, the registration of an FIR under this section for alleged non-compliance with maintenance and residence orders was erroneous.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents maintained that the DV Act should be interpreted liberally to provide comprehensive protection to women. They argued that non-compliance with maintenance and residence orders undermines the objectives of the Act and should be considered punishable under Section 31.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the case, analyzed the provisions of the DV Act and emphasized the importance of adhering to the literal interpretation of statutes, especially in criminal law. The court noted that Section 31 explicitly refers to the breach of “protection orders” or “interim protection orders” issued under Section 18. Maintenance and residence orders, governed by Sections 19 and 20, are distinct and not encompassed within the scope of Section 31.

The court highlighted that criminal statutes must be strictly construed, and any expansion of their scope through interpretation could infringe upon individual rights. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. (2022), the court reiterated the principle of literal interpretation when statutory provisions are clear and unambiguous.

Consequently, the High Court concluded that the trial court erred in directing the police to register an FIR under Section 31 for the alleged non-compliance with maintenance and residence orders. The FIR was quashed, and the petition was allowed.