JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shivam Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anish Kr. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant Application has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 22.5.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 227 of 2023 (Smt. Gunja Sonkar vs. Amardeep Sonkar and others), u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Domestic Violence Act"), P.S. Kothwali Katra, District Mirzapur, pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC, Mirzapur.

3. The fact giving rise to the present case is that opposite party No.2, who is the wife of the applicant, has filed an application u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act. However, after getting the report from the Protection Officer, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the applicant by order dated 22.5.2023 to reply to the same.

4. learned counsel for the applicant contends that while passing the impugned order dated 22.5.2023, the learned Magistrate has failed to consider that as per Section 28 of the Domestic Violence Act, the procedure of complaint case for the Application filed u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act is to be followed as per Cr.PC.. Before passing the impugned order, he did not record the statement under Section 200 Cr.P C.. As the applicant resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, the Magistrate had to conduct the enquiry u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. before proceeding further. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order itself shows that there is complete non-application of mind. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hamid Ali vs. State of UP and another, Application U/s 482 No. 11135 of 2020, as well as Smt. Geeta vs. State of U.P. ; 2022 8 ADJ 523.

5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that Section 28(2) of the Domestic Violence Act itself provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 28(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, the Court can lay down its procedure for the disposal of the Application u/s 12 or Section 23(2) of Domestic Violence Act. It is further submitted that there is no allegation in the complaint regarding the commission of any offence. Therefore, the present complaint is simply an application and not a complaint. It is also submitted that the Court is not bound to strictly follow the procedure of the complaint case as mentioned in the Cr. P.C.

6. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the record, the following questions have arisen for determination: (i) What is the nature of the proceeding of the Domestic Violence Act; (ii) whether the Application u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act is complaint or simply an application; (iii) whether before issuing notice to opposite parties, the procedure of complaint has to be followed as required u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss the object of the Domestic Violence Act.

8. The very purpose of enacting the Domestic Violence Act was to provide a remedy that is an amalgamation of the civil rights of the complaint, i.e., the aggrieved person. The intention was to protect women against violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family. As the civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. It is treated as an offence u/s 498-A of IPC. The purpose of enacting the law was to provide a remedy in civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in society. It is for this reason that the scheme of the Act provides that in the first instance, the order that the Magistrate would pass on an application by the aggrieved person would be of a civil nature, and if the said order is violated, it assumes the character of criminality. In order to demonstrate it, it would be appropriate to reproduce the introduction as well as the relevant portion of the stat