AMAR KUMAR MAHADEVAN Vs. KARTHIYAYINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the respondent in STC. No. 1607 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore. The respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner. The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") making certain allegations against the petitioner herein. The said application seems to have been filed on 25. 7. 2007 and on the same date, the sworn statement has been recorded. The learned Magistrate being satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, has taken the application on file under Section 12 of the Act and posted the application to 30. 7. 2007, directed the issue of summons to the accused/petitioner herein and also private notice to the petitioner herein. The petitioner has filed the above criminal original petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. seeking to quash the proceedings in STC. No. 1607 of 2007.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the sworn statement of the respondent herein was recorded only on 25. 7. 2007 and the hearing was adjourned to 30. 7. 2007 in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 12 (4) of the Act. It is further contended that the service of notice of the date of hearing fixed under Section 12 of the Act is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) of the Act namely, the notice was not served by the Protection Officer and private notice has been permitted. Further, a declaration of service of notice made by the Protection Officer has not so far been filed as per the provisions contained under Section 13 (2) of the Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the application filed by the respondent herein without calling for the report from the Protection Officer.