JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Madhulika Yadav, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 2 to 5.

2. This application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V, Lucknow, whereby Domestic Incident Report has been called for. A further prayer has been sought to direct the court concerned to proceed in Complaint Case No. 557 of 2022 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with respondent no. 2 as per the Hindu Rites on 17th June, 2017 and out of their wedlock, applicant no. 2 was born, who is at present in the care and custody of applicant no. 1 (mother). Respondent nos. 3 to 5 are the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively. It has further been submitted that applicant no. 1 was ousted from her matrimonial house by respondent nos. 2 to 5 on 1st October, 2020, when she was carrying the pregnancy of almost 7 months of applicant no. 2. Later on, applicant no. 2 born in Fatima Hospital, Lucknow. It has also been submitted that since the private respondents were not taking care of the applicants, applicant no. 1 made complaint in local police station, but no assistance was provided to her from the local police. Thereafter, she preferred application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2005’) in the court of ACJM V, Lucknow, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 557 of 2022. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that in place of issuing notice on the aforesaid application, the Presiding Officer called for the report of Protection Officer, i.e., Domestic Incident Report (for short ‘DIR’) and fixed the matter for 3rd March, 2022. As the report of the Protection Officer was not received, the applicants, while relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2384 of 2020), moved application to the court below to proceed without calling for the DIR. However, the court below vide impugned order dated 3rd March, 2022, in spite of issuing notice to the respondents, dismissed the said application with the order for calling the report of Protection Officer.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the DIR is not mandatory for adjudicating the matter under Section 12 of the Act, 2005. It has further been submitted that this controversy has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) SCC Online SC 607. It has, thus, been submitted that indulgence of this Court is necessary. The impugned order dated 03.03.2022 is liable to be set aside and the court below may be directed to proceed in the matter and conclude the same expeditiously.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants and submitted that without DIR of Protection Officer, the correct picture of the incident will not be clear to the court below and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below by calling for the DIR. However, they have no objection if the court below is directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. as well learned counsel for the private respondents and going through the impugned order and other relevant documents, it is undisputed fact that the complaint under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 was filed on 25th January, 2022 and the court concerned called for the DIR from the Protection Officer and fixed the matter for 3rd March, 2022. It is also undisputed that since the report was not made available, a