IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 28 of DV Act to devise its own procedure and issue appropriate directions relevant for deciding an application under Section 12 of DV Act.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') seeking setting aside of order dated 06.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (`learned ASJ') in Criminal Appeal No. 411/2019, and for setting aside order dated 03.04.2019 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Dwarka, New Delhi (`learned Magistrate') in CC No. 4989228/2016 titled as `Mukesh & Ors v. Yashpal & Anr.', filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (`DV Act').

2. Brief facts of the present case are that marriage of petitioner and respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 15.02.1997 in Delhi. As per respondent no. 1, the petitioner and his family members had started taunting and beating respondent no. 1 for bringing insufficient dowry. Thereafter, the relations between the parties had turned sour and ultimately, the respondent no. 1 had got an FIR bearing no. 37/2001 registered at Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan against the petitioner and his father under Sections 498A/406 of IPC. Vide order dated 06.01.2014, the accused persons were acquitted in the said case, appeal against which was also dismissed in the year 2017 and the revision petition against it is pending before this Court. The respondent no. 1 had also filed a complaint case bearing no. 526/2002 under Section 494 of IPC against the petitioner on the allegations that he had got married to one lady `X', but the petitioner had been acquitted vide order dated 07.09.2010 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonipat, Haryana. Further, during the pendency of aforesaid cases, the respondent no. 1 had filed the present complaint dated 05.06.2014 under Section 12 of DV Act before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had passed the impugned order dated 03.04.2019 whereby directions were given to SHO, P.S. Jaffarpur Kalan to visit the house of petitioner alongwith complainant/respondent no. 1, and to file a report whether any other lady is living in the house and whether she has children with petitioner. Thereafter, on 06.01.2020, learned ASJ had dismissed the criminal appeal filed by petitioner herein vide impugned order dated 06.01.2020 and had upheld the order of learned Magistrate.

3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned Magistrate and learned ASJ, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the learned ASJ had failed to consider that the petitioner herein was not heard by the learned Magistrate before passing the order and thus, it was violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also stated that the impugned order was passed only on the verbal submission of respondent no. 1. It is also argued by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent no.1 had earlier filed a case under Section 494 of IPC against petitioner and the petitioner had been acquitted vide judgment dated 07.09.2010 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonipat, Haryana and the same has attained finality. It is also stated that petitioner and his father had also got acquitted in the other FIR registered at the behest of respondent no. 1 under Sections 498A/406 of IPC. It is stated that the learned Magistrate could not have ordered the SHO concerned to visit the address of the petitioner to enquire about the issue which has already been decided by the competent court. Therefore, it is prayed that the orders passed by learned Magistrate and learned ASJ be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner, and the present complaint under Section 12 of DV Act was filed by the respondents against petitioner whereby petitioner and his father were summoned. It is stated that as per Domestic Incident Report dated 25.09.2014, respondent no. 1 had