JUDGMENT : Documentsfiled along with memo No. 655/12 are taken on record. Arguments heard. 2.This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (forshort 'the Code'), for quashing the proceedings, pending 45 MJC No. 314/1 1 inthe Court of Smt . Usha Tiwari , JMFC, Bhopal .In that case, notices have been issued to each one of the petitioners to showcause as to why the reliefs as prayed for by therespondent in her application, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') should not be granted. 3.According to the petitioners, proceedings are apparently an abuse of theprocess of the Court in view of the following facts : - ( i ) Marriage of the respondent was solemnised with Rahul Singh, son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 andbrother of other petitioners on 11-9-2000 in the Arya Samaj Mandir in Bhopal as it was an inter-caste love marriage. In the wedlock, they are blessed withtwo daughters. (ii)Soon after the marriage, the respondent and her husband started residingtogether separately from the petitioners. (iii)The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are senior citizens. (iv) No specific incident of domestic violence wasillustrated in the application and most of the alleged acts of domesticviolence related to the period prior to the date with effect from which the Actwas brought into force. 4.Coming to the legal aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitionershas urged that the application, under Section 12 of the Act, is notmaintainable against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, who are the sisters of Rahul , for the reason that the respondent, as defined inclause (q) of Section 2 of the Act, means only adultmale person. 5.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is nosufficient ground to interfere with legitimate proceedings under the inherentpowers. According to him, in the light of the facts stated therein, no optionwas left to the respondent except to move the Court, by filing the applicationfor the reliefs as contemplated in Sections 18, 19,20, 22 and 23 of the Act. According to him, in the light of the facts stated therein, no optionwas left to the respondent except to move the Court, by filing the applicationfor the reliefs as contemplated in Sections 18, 19,20, 22 and 23 of the Act. 6.In response, learned Counsel for the petitioners, inviting attention to thecontents of notice dated 18-11-2011 issued to Rahul Singh on behalf of his lather, the petitioner No. 1 and its reply, hascontended that the proceedings have been maliciously initiated at the instanceof Rahul with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeancein the wake of his father's inclination to disqualify him from claiming anyshare or inheriting the property terming the same as self-acquired. 7.At the outset, it may be observed that the argument as to maintainability ofthe application as against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 presumably based on the viewtaken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ajay Kant Vs. Alka Sharma, 2008 Cri.LJ 264 and reaffirmed in Tehmina Qureshi Vs. Shazia Qureshi , 2010(1) M.P.H.T.133, does not deserve acceptance in the wake of pronouncement of the SupremeCourt in Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade , 2011 Cri.LJ 1687. Accordingly, female relatives of husband/malepartner may also be arrayed as respondent to the application under Section 12of the Act. 8.The averments made in the application suggest that during the preceding periodof nearly 10 years, the respondent had been subjected to cruelty and harassmentinter alia for the under mentioned reasons: - ( i ) Caste-difference. (ii)Non-satisfaction of the dowry demand for a sum of 20 lacs . (iii)Inability to beget a male child. 9.However, fact of the matter is that the application filed on 2-11-2011 by therespondent neither contains details of any recent incident of domesticviolence, as defined in Section 3 of the Act, nor, furnishes any explanationfor non-presentation of the application at an earlier point of time despite thefact that the Act has been brought into force on 26-10-2006. Further, the orderdated 12-1-2012 , does notindicate as to what was there in the report of Protection Officer that weighedthe learned Magistrate in directing issuance of notice to secure presence ofthe petitioners on 30-1-2012 . Further, the orderdated 12-1-2012 , does notindicate as to what was there in the report of Protection Officer that weighedthe learned Magistrate in directing issuance of notice to secure presence ofthe petitioners on 30-1-2012 . 10.It is, therefore, apparent that the impugned order was passed without takinginto consideration the report prepared by the Protection Officer, ignoring theproviso to Section 12, that reads thus :- "Providedthat before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall takeinto consideration any domestic incident report received by him from theProtection Officer or the service provider." (Emphasis supplied) 11.The proviso ordinarily carves out an exception from the general rule enacted inthe main provision. It is also well settled that the word 'any' would mean oneor more out of several and includes all ( See : Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. AssistantDirector, Directorate of Enforcement, AIR-2010 SC 2239). In this view of thematter, even an interlocutory order directing issuance of notice would not beexcluded from the rigour of the proviso. Accordingly,learned Magistrate ought to have passed a reasoned order holding that primafacie a case existed for asking the petitioners as to why the reliefs , as claimed in the application, should not begranted. 12.In the ordinary course, the matter would have been remanded for recording areasoned order, but, I refrain from doing so simply because even if theallegations made against the petitioners in the application, are taken at theirface value and accepted in their entirety, no justification for initiation ofaction against them would be made out in view of the admitted fact that duringthe relevant period, they were residing separately from the respondent. Assuch, the matter falls under categories (1), (5) and (7) of the cases, asenumerated in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604 ,attracting interference under the inherent powers. 13.For these reasons, the petition stands allowed and the proceedings in MJC No.314/11 (above) are hereby quashed. C.C. as per rules.