Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

Heard the matter on maintainability and also finally at the motion stage itself.

2. Facts in brief required for adjudication of the instant Cr.M.P. that the Respondent had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, Chhattisgarh under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') and the same is pending. The Applicants/Non-applicants before the Court below had filed the instant Cr.M.P. and prayed that proceedings before the Court below under the Act of 2005 be quashed. The Petitioners have taken ground in the instant Cr.M.P. that invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), as per the provisions of Section 468 of the Code, the Court cannot take cognizance in the matter as the same is barred by limitation. The Court below taken cognizance and issued notice without the domestic incident report. The Court cannot issue notice and take cognizance in absence of any domestic incident report. It is further submitted that in the domestic incident report, names of Suraj Sharma, Satyanarayan Sharma and Jyoti Joshi are mentioned regarding their alleged involvement in the facts attracted and is subjudice before the Court below. The Court below also issued notice to the Applicant No.2 - Deepak Sharma and Applicant No.5 Rama Sharma. Also on the other points, it is submitted that as the other litigations/prosecution filed at the instance of the Respondent under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and other matter there is repetition of the allegations hence, this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may quash the proceedings before the Court below.

3. Heard counsel for the Petitioners on admission and also on maintainability. Perused the petition and the documents annexed along with the petition.

4. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners conceded that as the provisions aforementioned in relation to the Act of 2005 are not an offence hence Section 468 of the Code is not applicable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that without any report of domestic incident the Court cannot issue summons and take cognizance, and despite there is no mention of the names of Deepak Sharma and Rama Sharma, Court cannot issue summons and take cognizance against the said Applicants. Also supported the grounds taken as the various litigations/prosecution instituted at the behest of the Respondent, hence, the instant matter is repetition cannot be tried.

5. From perusal of the entire material, it goes to show that as the provisions of Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 26 of the Act of 2005 are not in the definition of offence they are in relation to protective and other jurisdiction. Undisputedly, Section 468 of the Code is not applicable. So far as the other grounds are concerned Section 12 of the Act is of the relevance and reads as under:

12. Application to Magistrate:- (1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Ac