Goutam Bhaduri, J.

The instant petition is for quashment of proceedings instituted by respondent No.2 Smt. Deeba Farhin against petitioners. Smt. Nafisa Anjum the petitioner No.1 herein claims to be the sister of husband of respondent No.2 Abdul Razique S/o Abdul Samad. The petitioner No.2 Smt.Taherun Nisha claims to be the aunt of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 Abdul Qadir stated that he is not at all related to respondent No.2.

2. Facts of this case are that a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act, 2005') was preferred by respondent No.2 Deeba Farheen, wherein 7 persons were arrayed as accused/non-applicants namely Abdul Razique, Abdul Sajid, Smt. Kamrunnisha, Smt. Gazala Anjum along with these three petitioners. The petitioner No.1 Smt. Nafisa Anjum claims to be the sister of Abdul Rajik the non-applicant no. 1 in the original application of complaint and stated that respondent No.2 and Abdul Razique was married on 08.01.2015 as per the Islamic law and it was stated that after that a report was made by the wife that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by the husband. Subsequently, some counseling took place, but the husband and wife could not go along. Subsequently, on a report made by wife the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and read with Sections 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005 was registered against the husband and other relatives including the petitioners. The criminal prosecution started and the petitioners were enlarged on bail. Subsequently, respondent No.2 the wife had filed another application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 before the JMFC, Bhatapara, which was registered as MJC No.33/17 and the summons for appearance was issued to the petitioners herein along with others.

3. It was further stated that petitioner No.1appeared through the counsel and moved an application for exemption from appearance, but the same was dismissed and bailable warrant was issued against her for personal appearance on 29.05.2017, therefore, the petitioners are aggrieved by registration of the case, impleadment and issuance of the summons in the MJC No.33/17 wherein a case under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 has been registered against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have never shared common household with respondent No.2, therefore, there has been a manifest mistake of law committed by the Court below as the Court below has failed to take into account the position and the residence of the petitioners. It is stated that petitioner No.1 Smt. Nafisa Anjum resides at Bilaspur, who is the sister of husband of respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2 Smt. Taherun Nisha is resident of Durg and she resides separately and she never resided with the respondent and petitioner No.3 Abdul is resident of Durg and has no relation with the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments and submits that the submission made by the petitioners cannot be accepted at this stage, which only relates to the averments. It is stated that the petition is premature and not tenable unless & until the finding is arrived at, the submission made by the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage.

6. Perused the petition and the documents connected with it. The copy of the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 is also perused. The petitioners No.1 to 3 are arrayed as respondents No.5, 6 & 7 in that petition. In para 2 of the petition, the pleading is made about the relation and the reasons have been assigned that all the petitioners herein have been inculpated for the reason that they are involved in causing cruelty and torture to the wife/respondent. Further reading of the petition would show that omnibus allegations have been attributed that all the non-applicants including the petitioners have cut the hairs of the wife and further assa