1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.231 OF 2011 (Shailesh Manohar Ghate .vs. Sau. Vimal w/o. Manohar Ghate and anr.) ................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................ CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 5 th August, 2011. Heard Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.1 and Mr.M.K.Pathan, A.P.P. for respondent no.2/State. The applicant and his Advocate are absent. Mr.Deepak Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.1, in support of the impugned orders, submitted that the impugned orders were interim in nature and were just and proper considering the ruling in the case of Nandkishor Damodar Vinchurkar .vs. Kavita Nandkishor Vinchurkar and anr. reported in 2009 (3) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 280, in which this Court has held that, at the interim stage, it is not necessary to call any report from the Protection Officer and also considering the ruling in the case of Sabah Sami Khan .vs. Adnan Sami Khan reported in 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 427, wherein It is observed that domestic incident report is required to be prepared by the Protection Officer u/s. 9 (1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic 2 Violence Act, 2005. But the said report is not required to be prepared in the case of domestic violence other than physical violence. In the present case, there was no such complaint of physical violence. That being so, on that ground, the application could not lie to insist upon the report from the Protection Officer at the interim stage. Regarding the question as to whether the interim relief can be granted, which may be in the nature of final relief, it is submitted that u/s. 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, ex-parte orders can be passed by the Magistrate concerned at the interim stage as he may deem just and proper. The second question raised by the applicant is whether the Criminal Court is having jurisdiction to decide civil rights of the parties. It is true that the decision, if any, of the Civil Court would be binding on the Criminal Court, but it does not mean that, the Criminal Court, upon prima facie view of the matter, cannot consider the rights of the parties or examine the facts and circumstances so as to observe as to which party is entitled to the order of the Court at the interim stage. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the Criminal Application. Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed. 3 jais JUDGE