IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 19^th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3753 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

DEEPAK PANDEY S/O SHRI KRISHNMANI PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE PARIHARIN PURVA THANA ATRAILA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI BYANKATESH PRASAD PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

AND ANEETA TIWARI W/O SHRI VIRENDRA TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O BAIJLA THANA NAIGARHI DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against Order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour, District Rewa in Criminal Revision No.11/2023 arising out of order dated 22.01.2021 and 27.01.2023 passed by JMFC, Sirmour, District Rewa in MJCR No.11/2021.

2. It is the case of the applicant that he was married to respondent on 29.04.2015. The attitude of the respondent was not familiar and good towards her matrimonial house. It is submitted that the respondent filed a complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘DV Act’) and accordingly the trial Court vide order dated 22.01.2021 issued notice to the petitioner after taking cognizance.

3. It is submitted that the said order was passed without calling the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) from Protection Officer, which is in violation of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the DV Act. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that petition was filed by applicant under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as Hindu Marriage Act Case No.53/2021. The District Judge, Tyonthar, District Rewa by order dated 15.06.2022 has severed the marital ties on the ground that behavior of the respondent was cruel towards her In- laws. Accordingly, the applicant preferred an application for dismissal of the proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act. However, by the impugned order the said application was rejected.

4. Challenging the order passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that there is already a judicial verdict in favour of applicant that it was the respondent who was cruel towards the applicant. At present, the applicant and respondent are not husband and wife, therefore the continuation of proceedings under DV Act is unwarranted. It is further submitted that cognizance was taken without calling of DIR.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. So far as requirement of domestic incident report is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi v.

Kamlesh Devi, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 90 has held as under:-

“64. Clause (e) of Section 2 defines a “domestic incident report” to be a report made in the prescribed form on receipt of a complaint of domestic violence from an aggrieved person. As noted from Section 12, an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person including the service provider vide sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the DV Act, may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the DV Act. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 states that before passing any order on such an application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. “Protection Officer” as defined in clause (n) of Section 2, means an officer appointed by the State Government under sub- section (1) of Section 8. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 states that the Protection Officers shall, as far as possible, be women and shall possess such qualifications and experience as may be prescribed.

65. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that an aggrieved person on her own or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Ma