The court emphasized that even minor procedural deviations should not lead to the quashing of proceedings under the Act, as it is a beneficent piece of legislation aimed at providing relief to aggrieved persons affected by domestic violence.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for the quashment of M.J.C. No. 169/2018 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Lahar, District Bhind with cost of Rs. 1 lakh.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short “Act of 2005”) on the allegations, that the applicant No. 1 is the husband of the complainant, whereas the remaining applicants are the relatives of applicant No. 1. On 29-8-2018 at about 9 P.M. all the applicants went to the parental house of the respondent No. 1/complainant and were armed with deadly weapons and demanded a Bolero Jeep in Dowry and also threatened that in case their demand is not fulfilled, then the applicant No. 1 would perform second marriage. Thus, it was prayed that the applicants be directed to pay Rs. 10,000 per month by way of monetary relief and should either make arrangement for house or should pay Rs. 5000/- per month by way of rent.

4. The Magistrate, by order dated 17-9-2018, took cognizance of the complaint and issued notices to the applicants.

5. Challenging the proceedings under section 12 of Act, 2005, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicants, that the respondent No. 1 has also lodged a police report for offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code in which, she had alleged that the applicants were demanding Rs. 20,000/-. In fact, the applicants were beaten by the respondent No. 1 and her relatives and accordingly, a F.I.R. was also lodged by the applicants for offence under section 294, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code. The applicants No. 1, 3 and 5 had sustained injuries and the photographs of the applicants No. 1, 3, and 5 in an injured condition have also been placed on record. It is further submitted that the Magistrate, has directly took cognizance of the complaint without adhering to the mandatory provisions of section 12 of Act, 2005. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1 has suppressed the fact of lodging of F.I.R. by her against the applicants for offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, otherwise, the Magistrate could have applied his mind to the allegations, because in the F.I.R., the allegations are that the applicants were harassing her for demand of Rs. 20,000/- whereas in the complaint, the respondent No. 1 has alleged that a Bolero jeep was demanded.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants.

7. So far as the submission made by the Counsel for the applicant, that the application/ complaint was filed directly before the Trial Court and the respondent No. 1 did not approach the Protection Officer is concerned, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Arif Ahmad Quraishi vs. Smt. Shajia Quraishi, 2010 (2) MPJR 284 has held as under:

“9. The proviso to section 12 of the Act provides that before passing any order on the application filed under section 12(1) of the Act, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the protection officer. In this case, admittedly, the Protection order has not so far been passed and it is yet to be passed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the application itself should not have been taken cognizance in absence of the domestic indecent report from the Protection Officer. A reading of section 12 of the Act does not warrant such an interpretation. Nowhere, it is provided in the Act, that even for taking cognizance of the application filed by the aggrieved person, the receipt of the domestic incident report from the Protection Officer is a condition precedent. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is untenable and does not merit acceptance.

10. As stated above, this Act, being a beneficent piece of legislation enacted for providing