S. No.38 Regular List ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.213/2024 Mohammad Iqbal Khatana & Ors …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Shabir Ahmad Shah, Advocate V/s Naseera Begum … ..Respondent(s) Through : None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 01.07.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the petition filed by the respondents against them under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter “the D.V.Act”), which is stated to be pending before the Court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Kralpora. 2. As per case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 entered into wedlock with the respondent in the year 2019. Petitioners No.2 and 3 happen to be parents of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 happens to be elder brother of petitioner No.1. It has been alleged that initially the parties were living happily together but lateron the respondent started to quarrel with petitioner No.1 on petty issues. It has been further pleaded that due to cruel behavior of the respondent towards her husband, CM(M)No.213/2024 2 | P a g e the matrimonial relationship between the two ran into rough weather. It has also been submitted that conduct of the respondent towards the petitioners has always remained abusive. It has been submitted that the respondent was unable to conceive, as a result of which she went into mental depression and left her matrimonial home. It has further been submitted that the petitioners extended their possible co- operation and support to the respondent but still she did not prove to be a true and faithful Muslim wife. 3. The petitioners have challenged the petition filed by the respondent against them before the learned trial Magistrate on the grounds that there was no domestic incident report available with the learned trial Magistrate and without there being any prima facie case for taking cognizance against the petitioners, process has been issued against them. It has been further submitted that the respondent has resorted to impugned proceedings with a view to traumatize the petitioners. It has also been submitted that the pleadings of the respondent are contradictory, inasmuch as, at one place she says she was unable to conceive and at another place she says that she has three children. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. CM(M)No.213/2024 3 | P a g e 5. The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioners while impugning the petition filed by the respondents is that no instance of domestic violence has taken place against respondent, as such, the application deserves to be quashed. 6. So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution and, therefore, a Magistrate, after obtaining response from the husband and his relatives etc., is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order passed by him, if upon going through the response of the husband and his relatives, he finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or no case for grant of interim order is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings. I am supported in taking the aforesaid view by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC Online SC 466. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law on the subject, it is clear that the Magistrate has power to revoke the CM(M)No.213/2024 4 | P a g e proceedings initiated against a person in terms of Section 12 of the D.V.Act, if and when the Magistrate finds that there is no ground to proceed against such person. Therefore, in the instant case it will be open to the petitioners to make an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against them. 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion and without going into merits of the contentions raised, it is provided that the petitioners may file an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against them. In case the same is done, the learned Magistrate shall, after hearing both the parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within one month from the date such application is filed by the petitioners. 9. This petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 01.07.2025 Sarveeda Nissar 1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 02.07.2025 14:34