Authority requires specific reasoning in summoning orders under domestic violence proceedings; appellate courts can uphold detailed findings even if initial orders lack depth.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 23.04.2014, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, West District, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.18/2/14, whereby an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) has been dismissed against the order of summoning dated 26.08.2013, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. During the pendency of the instant petition, petitioner No.1 has expired. Therefore, his name is deleted from the array of parties. The petitioner No.1 was the father-in-law of the respondent and petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law. Since petitioner No.1 has expired therefore, this petition is only confined to the mother-in-law.

3. The facts of the case are that respondent No.2 married the son of the petitioner, namely, Ajay Garg on 26.11.1995. On account of certain matrimonial dispute, on 30.05.2013, the respondent filed petition under Section 12 of the DV Act against the petitioners and the husband of respondent No.2.

4. On 26.08.2013, learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed for issuance of summons to both the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the order of summoning dated 26.08.2013, before the appellate court. The appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 23.04.2014 has dismissed the appeal, therefore, the petitioners are in the instant petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the order dated 26.08.2013, directing for issuance of summon against the petitioners is without application of mind. The same does not record any reason. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate only perused the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) and summons were directed to be issued against the petitioners. There was no discussion at all with respect to the allegation against the petitioner. He therefore, stated that the order dated 26.08.2013 suffers from legal infirmity and therefore, the appellate court should have exercised its appellate power in setting aside the illegal order dated 26.08.2013.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent however, opposed the prayer and submitted that no detailed order was required to be passed for summoning the petitioner. However, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the order after perusing the DIR. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, all submissions made by the petitioners have already been considered in the appeal and in paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of the impugned order passed by the appellate court, specific allegations against the petitioners have been noted. Since the appellate court does not find any substance and the matter has been examined in detail, therefore, in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this court should not entertain the petition.

7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submit that the trial of the case is going on and the evidence of the respondent is being recorded in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. A perusal of the order dated 26.08.2013, indicates that no detailed reason is given by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while passing the said order. He simply stated that DIR is perused and, therefore, he directed for issuance of summons. It was incumbent upon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, passing the order of summon to state the reason so as to understand what weighed with him to pass order of summoning. On this ground alone, this court would have been inclined to set aside the said order dated 26.08.2013. Howeve