Failure to consider the domestic incident report before proceeding with notices in domestic violence applications violates due process.

1. This petition has been filed under S.482 of CrPC for quashing the Case No. 1/2012 pending before the JMFC, Gwalior, under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act).

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 2 / complainant has filed an application before the JMFC, Gwalior, on 25/06/2012 alleging that on 27/04/2012 her in - laws turned out her and sent her to Gwalior keeping her jewellery and clothes and told the complainant to ask her parents to arrange Rs. five lacs. On 06/05/2012 husband of respondent No. 2, Dr. Mahesh Mathur, father - in - law Ramswaroop Mathur, mother - in - law Smt. Sheela Mathur and sister - in - law Geeta Dayal came to Gwalior and asked her family members as to whether amount has been arranged. Then the father of the complainant told that he is not in a position to arrange Rs. five lacs. On this, Sheela Mathur and Geeta Dayal became annoyed and started shouting that if he was not having the amount, why he has married his daughter. Thereafter, father of the complainant called his son - in - law Sughar Singh and daughter Namita Singh alongwith Anil Chaudhary and Dharmendra Gaud. When they were pleading that father of the complainant is unable to arrange Rs. five lacs, then Dr. Mahesh Mathur, Geeta Dayal and Ramswaroop Mathur told that when Rs. five lacs will be arranged, they may be informed on telephone and then they will take the complainant back. Till then, he will keep his daughter with him. On the basis of this complainant, learned JMFC, Gwalior, has taken the cognizance under S.12 of the Act. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that complaint filed by respondent No. 2 / complainant does not disclose prima facie commission of any offence. The allegation of physical and mental torture has been made without mentioning the details of the incident and attributing specific acts. Learned Trial Court has failed to consider the declaration deed, which was signed by petitioners No. 1 and 2 at one side and respondent No. 2 and her father at the other, in respect of transaction of dowry / gift at the time of marriage, in which it is clearly mentioned that dowry was neither demanded by the groom’s party, nor given by the bride’s party. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has straightaway issued the notice in violation of mandatory provisions of S.12 of the Act. It is further contended that before issuing notice learned Magistrate is required to obtain the report from the Protection Officer or Service Provider. It is further submitted that learned Magistrate has also not considered the contents of the application before issuing notice to the petitioners. It is prayed by the learned counsel that complaint deserves to be quashed.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 1 / State as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 have supported the order issuing notice against the petitioners.

5. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

6. In order to appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be proper to refer the provisions of S.12 of the Act which reads as under:
“12. Application to Magistrate.-- (1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) The relie