Ravindra Maithani, J
1. The challenge in this petition is made to the cognizance order dated 24.06.2022, passed in Misc. Case No. M113 of 2022, Smt. Gargi Kar vs. Kirti
Bhushan Mishra, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the caseâ€) as well as the summoning order
dated 16.07.2022. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the entire proceedings of the case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case is based on an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Actâ€) by the
respondent no.2. According to it, after her marriage with the petitioner on 08.12.2010, she was harassed and tortured in connection with demand of
dowry. He would establish anal sex forcibly with her, due to which, the health of the respondent no.2 suffered badly. He forcibly, by beating would
continue and force the respondent no.2 to establish anal sex with him. He would show obscene videos to the young child so as to pressurize the
respondent no.2 for anal sex. The respondent no.2 sustained injury in her anus. She was shown in the hospital at Balangir, FORTIS Jindal Hospital,
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh and in a Nursing Home at Roorkee also. The petitioner does not maintain the respondent no.2 and her son; he would not pay the
school fee of the child; he would not take care of them and would commit atrocities on them. The application under Section 12 of the Act is on record.
There are various allegations of harassment, torture, establishing carnal intercourse against the order of nature repeatedly.
4. On 24.06.2022, the court registered the application and sought report from Protection Officer. Domestic Investigation Report was received.
Thereafter, on 28.06.2022, notices were issued requiring the petitioner to appear in the case. It is impugned.
5. No argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioner¸ as to why the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.
6. An aggrieved person, under the Act may present the application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act seeking one or more reliefs under
the Act. That is what was done in the instant case. The court did not proceed straight away. Instead the court called for Domestic Investigation
Report, which was filed before the court. It has been placed on record by the respondent no.2.
7. It is not the stage to discuss the Domestic Investigation Report, which was submitted by the Protection Officer. This report has all the details
revealing the relationship, the conduct of the petitioner.
8. The court has merely issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner may very well appear in the case and file his response and make defences, as
are available to him. There is no reason to make any interference at this stage. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. The petition is dismissed.
