JUDGMENT

S.S. Shinde, J.—Heard counsel for respective parties.

2. This application is filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Raver below Exh. 28 in amendment application and for that purpose issue necessary orders for rejecting the amendment application. It is further prayed that the impugned order dated 27.7.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Raver below Exh. 28 for amendment application may be stayed.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

On 9.5.1999 the marriage of the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.1 was solemnized. It is the case of the applicant the respondent was not properly cohabiting. She left the house in April, 2007. She filed complaint under Sections 2,12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 7.8.2007 against the applicant. She also claimed compensation of Rs. 25.00.000/- and interim monetary benefit of Rs. 9,000/- p.m..

The learned J.M.F.C. issued notice through the protection Officer (Tahsildar) Raver. In response to the said notices, the applicants had appeared and filed their say denying all allegations in the complaint. It is further case of the applicants that, after a period of eight months from the date of filing of complaint, on 15.4.2008, the respondent filed an application below Exh. 28 for amendment in the complaint claiming further relief against the present applicants. The present applicants filed their say to the application below Exh. 28 on 5.7.2008 and had contended that there is no provision in criminal law for amendment of complaint and the nature of relief claimed, will be changed and the applicants will suffer irreparable loss.

He further submitted that the learned J.M.F.C. Raver on 28.7.2008, has not taken into consideration the legal aspects of the matters and allowed the amendment application filed by the respondent. Hence, this application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that learned J.M.F.C. Raver has wrongly allowed the application without considering the specific provisions in criminal law for amendment in the complaint, when after the amendment the nature of relief claimed will be changed. The applicants accused will be seriously prejudiced and irreparable loss would be caused to them. It is further submitted that the amendment application filed by the respondent, is even would change nature of the relief claimed by the complainant. It is further submitted that it is not mentioned in the application as to why the respondent has not claimed the reliefs in the main complaint. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the learned J.M.F.C. Raver without application of mind, has passed order mechanically without looking to the provisions of said Act, 2005. The sum and substance of the argument of the counsel for the applicant is that order dated 15.4.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Raver below Exh. 28 is without application of mind and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has submitted that the present application is not maintainable as there is alternate remedy under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that by way of filing application below Exh. 28, the respondent has not brought anything new on record. The courts below has rightly observed that there is no bar in carrying out such amendment under the Act. The purpose of enactment of the Special Act is quasi civil in nature. It is further submitted that the procedure as laid down in Section 28 of Protection for Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Rule 6(5) contemplates that application under Section 12 shall be dealt with and the orders enforced in the same manner laid down under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which itself is quasi criminal. It is further submitted that the order is not without jurisdiction. The order is not against the provisions of the Act and then in cons