The application under the D.V. Act can coexist with IPC proceedings; dual reliefs are permissible.

1. This application under S.482 read with S.397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the accused persons praying for quashing the Complaint Case No. 281 of 2012 filed by the respondent under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('D.V. Act' in brief), which is pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bijni.

2. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent. Also perused the complaint petition and other documents annexed with the criminal petition.

3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing of the domestic violence proceeding on two grounds. Firstly, according to the learned counsel since the respondent has already filed a separate case under S.498A of the Indian Penal Code , with the same allegation, a separate case under D.V. Act is not maintainable in law. Secondly, Mr. Sarma submitted that at least the case is not maintainable against the in - laws as the allegations are basically against the husband.

4. The complaint under S.12 of the D.V. Act has been filed with the allegations that since after the marriage on 8.3.2012 all the accused persons inflicted mental torture by way of demanding dowry and also abused the complainant by using unparliamentary words and filthy language. There is also an allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/-.

5. The D.V. Act has been enacted with avowed objective to give effective protection to the victims of domestic violence since it was felt that general provisions of IPC were not sufficient and enough to address the grievances of married women in the marital home. Under S.3 of the Act, domestic violence includes verbal and emotional abuse by way of insult, humiliation etc. and also economic abuse. I have noted earlier that there is an allegation of demand of dowry and also misbehaving the complainant / respondent by way of using filthy language, involving her dignity. The allegation of emotional torture is equally against the in - laws. Hence, the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed against the in - laws at this stage.

6. With regard to the question whether a parallel proceeding under S.498A of the IPC and also under S.12 of the DV Act can continue the reply can be solicited from S.26 of the Act. For better appreciation of this issue, S.26 of the Act is reproduced below :
"26. Relief in other suits and legal proceedings.--
(1) Any relief available under S.18, S.19, S.20, S.21 and S.22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil Court, family Court or a criminal Court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.
(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal Court. (3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief."

7. A bare reading of S.26 clearly indicates that the reliefs that can be claimed under the DV Act by way of filing a complaint under S.12 is in addition to the legal proceedings that may be initiated by an aggrieved person either in a civil court or in any criminal court.

8. Referring to Clause 8 of the complaint format, Mr. Sarma contended that at the time of preparing the complaint the 'service provider' should inform the victim / aggrieved pe