IMPORTANT POINT
Proceedings under the DV Act are civil, and notices issued under Section 13 require judicial discretion, particularly concerning distant relatives.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. :- The petitioners through instant petition are seeking quashing of Complaint bearing No.COMA No.3422 of 2022 dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent under Section 12 read with other provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’) and impugned notice dated 23.09.2022 Annexure P-2) whereby Trial Court has called upon the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with Manpreet Singh son of Jasminder Singh according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. The couple could not pull on their matrimonial life and started staying separate. The respondent No.2 preferred a petition under Section 12 read with other provisions of DV Act. The petition came to be filed against husband as well as distant relatives and family friends. Jurisdictional Magistrate vide order dated 23.09.2022 issued notice to the petitioners herein along-with husband and family members of husband of the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that petitioners are distant relatives of husband of the complainant or family friends of husband of the complainant. They do not fall within the definition of ‘respondent’ as defined under Section 2 (q) of DV Act, thus, they have been wrongly called upon by Magistrate. There is not even whisper in the impugned complaint against the petitioners still Magistrate has issued notice to the petitioners.

4. I have heard the arguments and perused the records.

5. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through Justice U. U. Lalit in “Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan” 2022 SCC Online SC 446 has held that ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Others 2004 (7) SCC 338 is not applicable to a notice issued under Section 12 read with Section 13 of D.V. Act. The relevant findings recorded by Hon’ble Supreme Court read as:

“29. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.

30. It is, however, true that as noted by the Protection Officer in his Domestic Inspection Report dated 2.08.2018, there appears to be a period of almost 10 years after 16.09.2008, when nothing was alleged by the appellant against the husband. But that is a matter which will certainly be considered by the Magistrate after response is received from the husband and the rival contentions are considered. That is an exercise which has to be undertaken by the Magistrate after considering all the factual aspects presented before him, including whether the allegations constitute a continuing wrong.

31. Lastly, we deal with the submission based on the decision in Adalat Prasad. The ratio in that case applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and issues process, in which event instead of going back to the Magistrate, the remedy lies in filing petition under Section 482 of the Code. The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued. Thus, the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in Adalat Prasad would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act.”

From the perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite evident that scope of notice under Section 12 read with Section 13 of D.V. Act is to call for a response from the respondent so that an appropriate order may be passed. An application under Section 12 cannot be equated with complaint or initiation of prosecution. Notice by Magistrate under Section 13 of D.V. Act is not like cognizance of an o