V. Jagannathan, J: The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.4.2009 in Crl.RP 156/2008 passed by the learned Add1. Sessions Judge, Bijapur and also the proceedings in Crl.Misc.77/08 on the file of the learned JMFC, Bijapur.

2. The case opetitioner is that the 2nd respondent claiming to be the wife of the petitioner approached the District Legal Services Authority seeking the assistance of the said authority to bring together the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner as they are the wife and husband and following the husband having gone out of the company of the 2nd respondent, she made such a request.

3. Pursuant to the said request made by the 2nd respondent, District Legal Services Authority took up the matter before Lok Adalath and both the petitioner and 2nd respondent were present and after perusing the documents produced by the 2nd respondent and also on being not successful despite a long deliberation, in bringing the parties to arrive at a compromise, the District Legal Services Authority thought it fit to refer the matter back to the jurisdictional magistrate for doing the needful in accordance with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act 2005). On receipt of the said order from the District Legal Services Authority, learned Magistrate of the Trial Court in Crl.Misc. 77/2008 directed notice to be issued to both the parties. This order of the learned magistrate was questioned before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Crl. Revision Petition No.156/2008 and the learned Judge of the said Court held that the order of the Trial Court does not call for interference except in regard to some technical aspects in as much as issuing notice to the State as a party was not found to be of any necessity and consequently learned Sessions Judge directed to array only the 2nd respondent and the present petitioner as the parties by deleting the State from the proceedings. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge that is called in question.

4. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed.

5. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Umesh V. Mamadapur is that the Trial Court was in error in issuing notice to the petitioner and the procedure followed is contrary to Section 12 of the Act 2005. In this regard the contention put forward is that before passing an order, the Magistrate shall take into account any Domestic Incident Report received by him from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. Since in the instant case, as there was no report received either from the Protection Officer or from the Service Provider, the question of issuing notice to the petitioner does not arise. Further reference was also made to the definition of the Domestic Incident Report as found in Section 2(e) of the Act 2005 and also Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act to submit that the Domestic Incident Report shall have to be in Form No.1. As such, the impugned order of the Trial Court, which has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, cannot be sustained in law in view of the above provisions.

6. On the other hand learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri Sanjay A. Patil submitted that it is only pursuant to the report received from the District Legal Services Authority the Trial Court thought it fit to issue notice to the respondent and 2nd has filed petition under Section 12 of the Act and said petition is under consideration and no order has been passed on the said application in view of the petitioner having approached this Court and having obtained interim order of stay.

7. It is his further submission that the Act itself provides for conciliation in the sense, Section 14 of the Act also empowers the Magistrate to direct the parties to undergo counselling and therefore the procedure followed is not violative of any of the provisions of the Act 2005.

8. The main contention of the petitioner's Counsel is that before passing an order the Magistr