Failure to provide natural justice in the issuance of summons limits the fairness of legal proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Head Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. B. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the State respondent no. 2.

2. This is an appeal under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside and C quashing the impugned proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1931 /2021 arising out of a petition filed u/s 31(1) read with Section 32 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or D.V. Act pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-5, Kamrup (M).

3. In brief the case of the petitioners is that the respondent no. 1 who is the mother of the petitioner no. 1 and mother-in-law of the petitioner no. 2 had filed a complaint case u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred as D.V. Act] which is accordingly M registered as D.V. Case No. 07 /2021 against the petitioners seeking protection under the D.V. Act of 2005, which is pending for adjudication before the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M). In the said application the respondent no. 1 also sought for interim relief u/s 12 of the D.V. Act and accordingly vide order dated 03.02.2021, the present petitioners were directed to restrain from committing/repeating any act of domestic violence on the respondent no. 1 and also to restrain the petitioners from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing the possession of the respondent no. 1 in the disputed premises.

4. It is further stated that on 19.02.2021 the respondent no. 1 also filed a petition u/s 31(1) read with Section 32 of the D.V. Act alleging that on 19.02.2021 the respondent no. 1 came to the house of the petitioner near Nabagraha, Natun Nagar, Silpukhuri but, she was not allowed to enter into the house by the petitioners and abused her by using slang languages and also pushed her away which resulted fracture on her back and hand. It is further alleged that then she called her younger son, namely, Pranab Kumar Baishya and her elder son, namely Sanjib Kumar Baishya who accordingly rescued her from there and thus the petitioners violated the ad interim order passed by the Court dated 03.02.2021. Thereafter, an FIR was also lodged by the respondent no. 1 in Chandmari Police Station which is registered as Chandmari P.S. Case No. 157/2021 u/s 341/323/34 IPC.

5. On the basis of the said application the Court also pleased to direct the concerned authorities to register a complaint case under the said provision of C law and thus a Complaint Case No. 1931 /2021 also registered and on 03.11.2023 the present respondent no. 1 was also examined u/s 200 Cr.PC as well as her son is examined u/s 202 Cr.PC before issuing summons against the petitioners. Thereafter the learned Court below is pleased to issue summons against the present petitioners vide its order dated 03.11.2023. Again on 18.03.2023, the respondent no. 1 has filed another application under the same provision of Section 31 of the D.V. Act, 2005 with a concocted story that the present petitioners again violated the interim order dated 03.02.2021, which was also accordingly fixed for filing of a written objection by the present petitioners on 25.01.2024. On that day the petitioners have filed a detailed written objection and specifically stated that the respondent no. 1 has been repeatedly trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court by filing one after another FIR and complaint cases. The petitioners subsequently also able to get the CCTV video footage which was provided by the