ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1 st respondent-State. As also Mr.D.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings in D.V.C.No.141 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, wherein cognizance is taken on the petition filed by the 2 nd respondent under Section 12 R/w Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short

“ D.V. Act” ).

3. The petitioner herein is arrayed as the 1 st respondent in the said D.V.C. The wife of the petitioner/2 nd respondent filed a petition, inter alia , seeking several reliefs under the provisions of the said Act, the cognizance of which is taken by the learned Magistrate.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , submits that under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, before passing any order on the application filed by the complainant/petitioner, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any Domestic Incident Report (for short “ D.I.R ”) received from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. However, in the present case, no such report has been received by the learned Magistrate as on the date of taking cognizance and therefore the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated. He submits that taking cognizance of the petition filed by the 2 nd respondent, without adhering to the requirement of Law under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, is legally not sustainable and therefore continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in D.V.C.No.141 of 2018 constitutes abuse of process of Law and accordingly the same are liable to be quashed.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Kiran Dutta vs State & Anr (Crl.M.C.No.3106/2008, dated 11.02.2014) and also a decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Gaurva Sharma And Others vs. Sily Sharma [LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-

3090].

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, inter alia , submits that the contentions, as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, deserves no consideration and the issue with regard to taking cognizance of the petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, in the absence of any D.I.R has been considered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Prabha Tyati vs. Kamlesh Devi (AIR 2022 SC

2331) and in the light of the Law laid down by the Apex Court, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties, perused the material on record as also the decisions on which reliance is placed by both the counsel.

8. In Kiran Dutta ‟s case referred to supra, a learned Judge of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with Section 12 of the D.V. Act, inter alia , held that the Court trying cases under the D.V. Act cannot by-pass mandate of Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which requires consideration of D.I.R prior to passing any order under Section 12 of the Act. The learned Judge opined that non-consideration of D.I.R by the Trial Court while deciding the petition under Section 12 of the Act violates the mandate of Section 12 of the D.V. Act and thus renders order of the the Trial Court un-sustainable.

9. The Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Gaurav Sharma ‟s case referred to supra following the earlier decision in Rama Singh vs. Maya Singh [2012 4 MPHT 169] held that the order directing issue of process to secure the presence of persons on a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wit