The requirement to consider the domestic incident report before passing any order on the complaint application relates to final orders under Section 18 of the Act, not to the initiation of an enquiry or issuance of summons.

Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 20.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Fast Track Court, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.134 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad dated 03.09.2014 passed in C.P. Case No.1059 of 2011 refusing to dismiss the complaint case filed by the present opposite party no.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (in short the D.V. Act, 2005), has been affirmed.

2. The solitary question, which has come up for consideration before this Court, is whether the non-receipt and non-consideration of the domestic incident report of Protection Officer before initiation of an enquiry under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 vitiates the entire proceeding?

3. The relevant fact of the case which is necessary for the proper adjudication of the above issue, in short, is that an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 was filed by the complainant-Supria Roy against the present petitioners on the allegation that her marriage with the present petitioner no.1-Mainak Roy was solemnized on 27.01.2008 at Dhanbad and on the very night of marriage her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law misbehaved with her and with her parents. At the time of her Bidai also she was humiliated by them. It is also alleged that after Bidai she came to her matrimonial home but after 5 or 6 days of marriage she was tortured for demand of Maruti car and even she was assaulted in which she sustained injury and any how she escaped from there and took shelter in her parent’s house. Whereafter a case under Section 498A I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was filed against the present petitioners and subsequently a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) was also filed by the complainant. The complainant in her complaint petition claimed various reliefs including right of residence and monitory relief.

4. It appears from the record that after service of notice, the petitioners appeared before the court and filed an application with prayer to dismiss the complaint case on two grounds (i) court of Dhanbad has no jurisdiction to entertain the alleged complaint as the “domestic violence” was committed at Asansol and not within the territorial jurisdiction of Dhanbad court; and (ii) before initiating the proceeding or enquiry, a report of Protection Officer of Asansol, where the alleged domestic violence was committed, was mandatory to be looked into in terms of proviso of Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 but as the same has not been followed, the continuation of proceeding is bad in law and the complaint petition is not maintainable. It appears from the record that though a report was called for by the court from Protection Officer, Dhanbad but not from the Protection Officer, Asansol. The court below after hearing both the parties rejected the objection raised by the petitioners on non-maintainability of the complaint case. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions court. By order impugned dated 20th December, 2014, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhanbad dismissed the appeal holding that the mandates as given in proviso to Section 12 calling for the report of Protection Officer relates to final orders and not at the stage of initiation of enquiry/proceeding under the said Act. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned senior counsel, Dr. M.K Laik while assailing the order impugned of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short “S.D.J.M.”) as also that of the appellate court, as perverse and bad in law seriously contended that the court of S.D.J.M., Dhanbad without following the mandates as contemplated in proviso to Section 12 initiated the proceeding under D.V. Act and issued summons to the petitioners to face enquiry. According to the learned se