JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

Heard Mr. P. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Kakati, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent herein is the complainant in a complaint case filed under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as "2005 Act" for short), which is registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 75/2021 and is pending for disposal before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darrang at Mangaldai. The two petitioners herein are the opposite parties (accused) in the said case. The learned trial Court, by an order dtd. 19/3/2021, had issued notice on the petitioners herein and observed that the prayer for interim relief can wait till appearance of the petitioners.

3. By filing this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the said order dtd. 19/3/2021 and all subsequent orders passed in the said Misc. Case No. 75/2021.

4. By referring to the grounds on which this present petition was presented, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court had no jurisdiction and/or authority to pass the impugned order dtd. 19/3/2021. It was also submitted that while passing the impugned order, the provisions of proviso to Sec. 12 of the 2005 Act was violated. It was also submitted that no case under Sec. 18 to 22 of the 2005 Act was made out in the complaint and therefore, the impugned order was unwarranted. It was also submitted that the said proceeding was malicious and abuse of the process of law as it was filed as a counter-blast to the divorce case filed by the petitioner and that as the divorce case was filed prior in point of time, the impugned order and all subsequent orders passed in the said proceeding were liable to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has made his submissions to oppose the prayer made in this petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, the Court has carefully examined the present petition as well as documents appended thereto. It may be mentioned that although LCR was called for by order dtd. 3/9/2021, but as only legal issues are raised in this case, the Court deemed it appropriate that in light of the nature of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the production of LCR (lower Court record) is not necessary as all relevant materials have been annexed to this petition.

7. At the outset, it would also be appropriate to mention herein that the word "Magistrate" has been defined under Sec. 2(i) of the 2005 Act, which is extracted below:

"2 (i) "Magistrate" means the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, or as the case may be, the Metropolitan Magistrate, exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) in the area where the aggrieved person resides temporally or otherwise or the respondent resides or the domestic violence is alleged to have taken place."

8. It would also be relevant to quote the provisions of Sec. 12 of the 2005 Act, which is 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-sec. (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 m