JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 04.03.2022 by which notices have been issued to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.941 of 2021, registered for the offences under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as' the Act, 2005), pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar.

3. The complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner on 08.03.2019 at Deoghar. After the marriage, Rs.11 Lakhs and some ornaments were handed over to the petitioner. After some time of the marriage, the in-laws started to show their displeasure with respect to the gifts brought by the opposite party no.2. The demands started into tortures and infliction of the same and some how she was beaten up. Family counselling were conducted but the same was of no reason. The opposite party no.2 gave birth to a pre-matured child but the petitioner still did not turn up to see the child. The opposite party no.2 also mentions that the petitioner had filed a petition for divorce at the courts in Uttar Pradesh as Matrimonial Suit No.1001 of 2020. After institution of the said matrimonial suit, opposite party no.2 instituted one FIR which has been registered as Deoghar Mahila P.S. Case No.24 of 2021. Opposite party no.2 was threatened to be removed of the house. Hence, she complained about the same. The present complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 and the same has been registered as Complaint Case No.941 of 2021 under Section 12 of the Act, 2005.

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was posted for hearing on 21.09.2021 and Domestic Violence Report was called from the C.D.P.O., Deoghar vide order dated 01.12.2021. He further submits that once again the said Report was called vide order dated 22.01.2022, which was not received and in spite of that the learned court has directed to issue notice vide order dated 24.02.2022, which is against the mandate of law as envisaged under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, 2005. He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that once the learned court has called upon the report from the C.D.P.O., Deoghar, it was incumbent upon to wait for report and thereafter the notice has to be issued. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi; (2022 SCC OnLine SC 607).

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that it is a welfare legislation, wherein, it has been envisaged that the matter must be concluded within 60 days in view of Section 12(5) of the Act, 2005. He further submits that an application was filed directly before the learned court and it was not filed through the Protection Officer. He also submits that once the case is filed directly to the learned court, the learned court is empowered to decide the procedure and statute has also provided the same under Section 28(2) of the Act, 2005. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in issuing the notice. He further submits that the petitioner can agitate all his grounds before the learned court where the matter is still pending. He placed reliance upon paragraph 65 of the judgment passed in Prabha Tyagi(supra).

6. Paragraph 65 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

“65. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that an aggrieved person on her own or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the DV Act but the proviso states that when a domestic incident reported is