- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the1 applicants, Sri Vikas Tiwari, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A. GA.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants has challenged the proceedings, which are to take place consequent to an application dated 8-1-2008 filed by opposite party No. 2 under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) district Jhansi. Learned Counsel for the complainant raised preliminary objection in this case that no order taking cognizance has been passed. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted orally, although it is not mentioned in the application, that notice under Sections 12 and 13 has been issued by the Magistrate. I have already held in the case of Azimuddin alias Kunta and others v. State of U. P. and another decided on 12-2-2008 that no 482 Cr. P. C. application lies even against mere issuance of notice, as no cognizance has been taken by the Court. This is also the view taken by the Full Bench in the case of Ram Lal Yadava v. State of U. P. and others, 1989 (26)A. C. C. 181. Furthermore, it may be pointed out that proceedings under the Act are essentially civil in nature and it is only for the purpose of cutting down procedural delays, that powers have been conferred on a Magistrate under the provisions of the Cr. P. C. for enforce ment of the rights under the-Act and for this reason also an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. should not ordinarily lie against an order under the Act.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, at this pre-cognizance stage, the application is not maintainable and it is rejected. .;