( 1 ) THIS application, under section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the applicants, who have been called by vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 21-5-2007, in Criminal Case No. 2262 of 2007, under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women from domestic Violenceact, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to show cause within specified time, why action should not be taken against them on the complaint of opposite party No. 2, smt. Swapnil Singh. The applicants have prayed for quashing and stay of proceedings of said complaint.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A.

( 3 ) IT appears from the record that the opposite party No. 2 has been married with applicant No. 1. The applicant No. 2 is the father-in-law of opposite party No. 2. Some matrimonial disputes are going on between the parties and beside this complaint, some other criminal proceedings are also going on. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed before me a few legal points. According to him, there is no compliance of Rule 6 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). According to these Rules, the complaint must be filed in Form II given in the Rules. He has argued that without compliance of Rule 6, the complaint cannot be entertained by the Magistrate. Rule 6 of the said Rules is qyoted below:

Rule 6 : Application to the Magistrate - (1) Every application of the aggrieved person under Section 12 shall be in Form II or as nearly as possible thereto. (2) An aggrieved person may seek the assistance of the Protection Officer in preparing her application under sub-rule (1) and forwarding the same to the concerned Magistrate. (3) In case the aggrieved person is illiterate, the Protection Officer shall read over the application and explain to her the contents thereof. (4) The affidavit to be filed under sub-section (2) of Section 23 shall be filed in Form iii. (5) The applications under section 12 shall be dealt with and the orders enforced in the same manner laid down under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)"

( 4 ) SECTION 12 (3) of said Act also provides procedure for filing application under subsection (1) which runs as under : 12 (3) - Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto. "

( 5 ) THOUGH, learned counsel for the applicants has given a good reasoning in support of his argument, but I see no force in this contention. The words "as nearly as possible thereto" appeared in Section 12 (3)of the Act and Rule 6 both. This is the social legislation and purpose of the Act is not to create hurdle before the aggrieved person in filing the complaint, but Form has been prescribed in the Rules, only to facilitate filing of complaint so that it may contain all necessary particulars for decision of the case. If any complaint is drafted in such a manner with all necessary particulars and usual information required by prescribed form are contained therein, that cannot be said to be a bad complaint in the eye of law. The Form prescribed by the Act is nothing else, but proper forum and facility given to the complainant for placing all relevant facts before the court concerned. The Legislature was very much aware of this fact, that is why both in Section 12 and Rule 6, the words "as nearly as possible thereto" have been mentioned. The intention of the Legislature was not at all to reject the complaint for not filing in prescribed Form II.

( 6 ) THE next point, which has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the applicants is that the complaint cannot be filed directly to the Magistrate, but it should be filed before the Protection Officer as defined in section 2 (n) of the Act and on receiving the complaint, the Protection Officer will submit Domestic Incident Report and then the Magistrate will take cognizance of the m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document