1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APL) No. 202 of 2011 Smt. Shashi Subashchandra Chopra V/s. Sau. Ashita w/o Arun Chopra and another ......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ......................................................................................................................................... Mr. N. B. Bargat, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. P. V. Bhoyar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2011. By this application, the applicant prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 30/03/2011, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in an Appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which arose from order dated 10/02/2011 passed by 6th J.M.F.C., Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1279/2010. 2. It appears that the non-applicant Sau. Ashita w/o Arun Chopra had lodged proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, mother-in-law, etc. The proceedings were instituted under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned 6th J.M.F.C., Nagpur by order dated 2 10/02/2011, decided to proceed further with the application when written statement of the original respondent no. 1 (husband of the present non-applicant) on the ground that respondent no. 1 had refused to accept notice although he knew about the application. 3. According to learned Advocate for the applicant, under Rule 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2006 the notices for appearance in respect of proceedings under Act shall contain names of the persons alleged to have committed Domestic violence, the nature of domestic violence and such other details which may facilitate the identification of person concerned. It is further submitted that the service of notices shall be made by the Protection Officer or any other person directed by the Protection Officer to serve the notice, on behalf of him, at the address where the respondent is stated to be ordinarily residing in India. The complainant or aggrieved person is to serve the respondent at the place where he is stated to be gainfully employed, as the case may be. Notices are required to be delivered to any person resident of such place and in case of such service is not possible it shall be pasted at a conspicuous place on the premises. For serving notices under Section 13 or in any other provision of the Act, the provisions under Order V of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908) or the provisions under Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) as far as practicable may be adopted. The procedure making reference to Order V of Code of Civil Procedure or 3 Order Chapter (XI) of Code of Criminal Procedure appears to have been brought a flexibility in order to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously after hearing the parties. Under these circumstances, overall perusal of Rule 12 with it's sub-clauses and sub-rules, appears enabling provisions. The question as to whether service is required to be done through the Protection Officer only, will have to be answered by the learned trial Magistrate concerned in the facts and circumstances of each case if application is made under Section 12 of the Act where an aggrieved person or Protection Officer was present at the same time when applicant was present in proceeding under Section 12. The Magistrate concerned, while passing an order, is required to take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him. It may be received from an aggrieved person or Protection Officer or the service provider as contemplated under Section 12. Be that as it may, if an application is presented by Protection Officer, in that event, the service on behalf of the Protection Officer upon the non-applicant may be insisted upon in the facts of the given case. Coming back to the facts appearing in this case, it appears that an application was made by an aggrieved person Sau. Ashita w/o Arun Chopra. Protection Officer was not in picture in the proceedings so as to insist upon service. Learned Advocate for the applicant do not know the name of the person who is designated as Protection Officer in the local area in question and sought time to collect such information. To my mind, when Protection Officer was not in picture at all and the application was 4 presented by an aggrieved person herself, it was open for the Magistrate to consider the enabling procedure, provision under Rule 12 in the light of Order V of Code of Civil Procedure or under Chapter (XI) of Code of Criminal Procedure as the case may be and, therefore, according to learned Magistrate, when the notice was issued to respondent No. 1 in the application through his employer Company namely Infosys Technologies Ltd, Respondent No. 1 is thus attributed having deemed knowledge in respect of proceedings which was made basis to proceed with the application without written statement of respondent no. 1. Under these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was well within his discretion not to entertain the appeal by reasoned Judgment. For the reasons stated, therefore, I do not find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. The application is dismissed. 4. It is open for the applicant to move the Magistrate concerned for notice to the Protection Officer in the area concerned, if applicant so desire for the purposes of further proceedings. JUDGE Punde