HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3451 of 2011 Dated 26.4.2011 Between: P.Leela Prasad and another. …Petitioners. And: P.Aruna and another. …Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3451 of 2011 ORDER:- Heard petitioners’ counsel. 2. Both these petitioners are respondents in DVC No.12/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggayyapet, Krishna District. 3. A perusal of the complaint in the DVC No.12/2011 shows that the first respondent herein has claimed several reliefs and they are stated in para-5 of the complaint. That DVC purports to be filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short - Act). The two petitioners herein are the husband and the mother-in-law of the first respondent. 4. The Proviso to Section 12 of the Act says that before passing an order, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. The language of the said Proviso and especially the words “any domestic incident report received by him (i.e. Magistrate)” would show that Magistrate has to look into that report only if it is received by him and that requirement is not mandatory. It may be noted that under Section 12 of the Act the aggrieved person can also directly approach the Magistrate without first approaching the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. Hence the contention of the petitioners’ counsel that the Magistrate has to look into the domestic incident report furnished by the Protection Officer and he can act only upon perusal of such report cannot be accepted. It should however be noted that this matter is, in the circumstances of this case, being disposed of at the admission stage and hence no final opinion is expressed on the above aspect. Both the petitioners say that the first respondent made several allegations against them which require a thorough enquiry and they also stated that a preliminary enquiry by the Protection Officer may also be necessary. 5. In the circumstances of this case and having regard to the pleas of the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the interests of justice would be met if the Magistrate is directed not to pass any ex parte interim order against the petitioners and pass orders on merits either at interlocutory stage or at the time of disposal of the DVC after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners. 6. The Court below shall take into account all the pleas raised by the petitioners which may be available to them under the Act and pass appropriate orders. It is however made clear that despite service of notice and grant of sufficient opportunity if the petitioners fail to appear before the Court below it shall be open for it to proceed in accordance with law. 7. This petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 26th April 2011 Dvs/CVRK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3451 of 2011 Dated 26.4.2011