JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Pushilal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam/respondent No.1.

2. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 482/397/401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for quashing of the order dated 24.06.2020 issuing notice to the petitioners/respondents in connection with C.R. Case No. 178/2020 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(herein after referred as ‘D.V. Act, 2005’).

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.1 has filed a complaint case under Section 12 of D.V. Act, 2005 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, alleging inter alia that she has been tortured both physically as well as mentally by her husband and his family members and as such, sought various reliefs under the provisions of the Act. Subsequently, a domestic incident report under Section 12 was also forwarded to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur from the protection officer and then it was registered as C.R. case No. 178/2020.

4. After registration of the aforesaid case, it was transferred to the court of JMFC, Tezpur for disposal of the same. On receipt of the case from the court of CJM, Sonitpur, the next date was fixed on 22.06.2020 for passing necessary order. On 22.06.2020, the opposite party No. 2 was absent and the court was also not functioning properly due to Covid-19 pandemic and the case was fixed again on 08.07.2020 for necessary order. On 24.06.2020, the aggrieved party i.e. the respondent No. 2 filed an application praying for interim monetary relief and the learned court was pleased to grant ex-parte interim relief of Rs.1200/- for the aggrieved person/respondent No. 2 and her child and also issued notice against the respondents including the present petitioners.

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of notice by the learned Trial court, this petition for quashing of the order has been preferred.

6. Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, does not reveal any allegation of petitioners being involved in any act of domestic violence as defined under the D.V. Act and as such, the mechanical issuance of notice against the petitioners is not in consonance with law and as such, the proceeding of C.R. Case No. 178/2020 and the order dated 24.06.2020, issuing notice against the petitioners may be set aside.

7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no whisper about commission of any act under the D.V. Act as against the petitioner No. 2 to save and except the expression of all family members and in view of lack of any specific act or role, on the basis of vague and omnibus allegation, the issuance of notice and continuance of proceeding of the case would result in failure of justice and as such, the proceeding of C.R. Case No. 178/2020 as well as order dated 24.06.2020 issuing notice against the petitioners may be set aside and quashed.

8. It is also stated that the petitioner No. 3 who is the maternal uncle of Raju Mahanta i.e. husband of respondent No.2 is no way connected with any domestic violence towards the aggrieved persons i.e. respondent No.2. The allegations against him is that he played a pivotal role in arranging the marriage of the parties and his name has been dragged for this reason only, which does not come under the purview of D.V. Act.

9. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 concealed material facts regarding her mental stage before marriage and has not come up with true facts in the case in question regarding leaving the house of her husband as she used to take treatment in the Mental Hospital at Tezpur for which she took shelte