ORDER :

1. Submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor have received the due consideration of the Court.

2. Seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in D.V.C. No. 88 of 2022 that is pending on the file of the Court of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

3. Sans unnecessary details, respondent No. 1 gave a report to the Protection Officer that she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and other family members and therefore, she is in requirement of protection from the said domestic violence and further, she requires financial assistance. The Protection Officer thereafter submitted a domestic incident report. Consequently, proceedings against the husband of respondent No. 1 and the petitioners who are arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 5 commenced.

4. During the course of hearing, the main grievance exhibited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Court is insisting the physical attendance of the petitioners for each and every adjournment of the said Domestic Violence Case and therefore, the petitioners are facing serious hardship. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the family affairs of respondent No. 1 and her husband and only because they are distantly related to the husband of respondent No. 1 they are roped into the proceedings. He further contended that the petitioners were falsely implicated by respondent No. 1 with an intention to wreck vengeance against her husband. By stating so, the learned counsel sought for quashing of proceedings that are pending against the petitioners in the said Domestic Violence Case.

5. Opposing the relief sought for and submitting that only because the petitioners are unable to attend the trial Court, the entire proceedings in the said Domestic Violence Case cannot be quashed, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that all the proceedings that would be conducted in domestic violence cases are civil in nature and hence, quashing of proceedings is undesirable.

6. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a legislation enacted to shield the rights of women which are enshrined and guaranteed under the Constitution of India, besides paving way to deal with the matters connected to and arising out of the family disputes in an effective and efficacious manner.

7. When the provisions contained in the said legislation i.e. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005” for brevity) are looked into, it is very clear that the proceedings that would be conducted are more civil in nature. The protection orders that would be granted under Section 18, the residence orders that would be granted under Section 19, the monetary reliefs that would be granted under Section 20, the custody orders that would be granted under Section 21 and the compensation orders that would be granted under Section 22, would be based on the applications that would be filed by the aggrieved persons, the domestic incident reports and the defence taken by the respondents therein. All those proceedings are civil in nature. No doubt, Section 28 (1) of the Act of 2005 lays down that the proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is specifically mentioned under Section 28(2) of the Act of 2005 that the Court is empowered to lay down its own procedure for disposal of the applications filed by the aggrieved persons or the Protection Officers. May be due to the fact that the power to deal with the domestic violence cases is given to the Magistrate, the litigant public are under the impression that the proceedings initiated under the Act of 2005 are purely criminal in nature.

8. Section 2(i) of the Act of 2005 states that “Magistrate” means Judicial Magistrate of First