ORDER 1. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief the Code), against the order dated 25.1.2003 passed by 15th ASJ, Indore, in Criminal Case No.568/2013 whereby she affirmed the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the JMFC Indore in Cr.Case No.13/2012. 2. The facts are undisputed that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and and the respondent was solemnized on 24.6.2009 and the petitioners No.2 to 6 are Father, Mother, Maternal Uncle, Maternal Aunt and Sister of petitioner No.1 respectively. On 2.5.2012 the respondent-wife lodged the report against the petitioners No.1 to 3 and 6 at Mahila Police Station, Indore which was registered as Crime No.50/2012 under section 498A/34, 506 of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners filed the petition under section 482 of the code for quashing the proceedings and charges framed against them. The petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 2.9.2013 against which the petitioners filed appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court(Cr.A.No.1144/2014), which was allowed vide order dated 9.5.2014 and petitioners were discharged. 3. The brief facts of this case are as under :- (A) 24.6.2009 : Marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized. (B) 23.4.2011 : Respondent wife left the house of petitioner No.1. (C) 14.7.2011 : Petitioner No.1 filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for seeking restitution of conjugal rights. (D) 7.9.2011 : The respondent filed a written complaint at Mahila Thana, Indore raising allegations against the petitioners that they treated her with cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. (E) 12.12.2011 : The parties were called at the Mahila Police Station, Indore and the matter was settled between the parties. (F) 2.5.2012 : The respondent lodged the report at Mahila Thana, Indore, against the petitioners No.1 to 3 and 6 which was registered as Crime No.50/2012 under section 498A/34, 506 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. (G) 17.5.2012 : The respondent filed an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners before the JMFC, Indore, which was registered as Cr.Case No.13/2012. 4. This petition is with regard to the complaint filed by the respondent-wife under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in brief the ‘Act’). 4. This petition is with regard to the complaint filed by the respondent-wife under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in brief the ‘Act’). It is alleged that the petitioners’ have treated the respondent-wife with cruelty for the demand of dowry. The petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and raised two objections that for last 13 months the respondents-wife is residing separately therefore the domestic relationship does not subsists. Thus the application is time barred and the petitioners No.4 to 6 never lived together with the respondent-wife. On 8.8.2013 the learned JMFC Indore dismissed the objections. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioners filed the appeal under section 29 of the Act. The learned ASJ dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as per the provisions of section 20A of the Act, all the proceedings under sections 12, 18 to 23 and section 31 of the Act are governed by the Code. As per the provisions of section 468 of the Code, application under section 12 of the Act can be filed within a period of one year from the date of incident whereas the respondent filed this application after lapse of 13 months from leaving her matrimonial house. For this purpose he relied upon the order dated 7.3.2013 passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Sejal Dharmesh Ved v. State of Maharashtra and others in Cr.A.No.160/2011 and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit Singh v. Stateof Punjab (2011)12 SCC 588 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the petitioners No.4 to 6 are Maternal Uncle, Maternal Aunt and Sister of the petitioner No.1. They never lived with the respondent therefore they were not having any domestic relationship with the respondent-wife. Thus the application under section 12 of the Act is not maintainable against them. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submit that on the same facts the respondent firstly, lodged the report against the petitioners under section 498A/34 and 506 of IPC, and thereafter filed the application under section 12 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, quashed the proceeding holding that the prosecution under section 498A/34, 506 IPC is wholly unfounded. In view of this, the proceedings under section 12 of the Act be quashed. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, quashed the proceeding holding that the prosecution under section 498A/34, 506 IPC is wholly unfounded. In view of this, the proceedings under section 12 of the Act be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no limitation provided for filing the application under section 12 of the Act and at relevant time the respondent-wife lived with the petitioners No.4 to 6 in a shared household, thus, she was in domestic relationship. Therefore, Courts below rightly rejected the objections raised by the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the offence under section 498A/34 and 506 of IPC is different from the offence under the Act, therefore, there is no impediment in filing the application under section 12 of the Act. The Indian Penal Code is a general law whereas the Domestic Violence Act is a special law and for this preposition he relied upon the judgment of C. G. High Court in the case of Rajesh Kurre v. Safurabai reported in laws (CHH)-2008-11-22. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. 11. Firstly I have considered the objection with regard to limitation. Section 28 provides that all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code. Section 12 provides procedure and requirement of filing of the application and as such there is no limitation prescribed for filing the application under section 12 of the Act. It is true that such application should be filed within a reasonable time as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Sejal Dharmesh Ved (Supra). Thus I find that there is no force in the objection raised by the petitioners in so far as limitation for filing the complaint is concerned. 12. The second contention, which has been raised by the petitioners, is that there is no domestic relationship between the respondent-wife and the petitioners No.4 to 6. According to the petitioners they never lived with the respondent in a shared house-hold whereas the respondent alleged that she was in domestic relationship with the petitioners. 12. The second contention, which has been raised by the petitioners, is that there is no domestic relationship between the respondent-wife and the petitioners No.4 to 6. According to the petitioners they never lived with the respondent in a shared house-hold whereas the respondent alleged that she was in domestic relationship with the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court, at this juncture no finding can be arrived in so far as this rival contention of the parties is concerned, as it is a matter of evidence which would be marshaled in the trial. 13. The third contention of the petitioners is that on 2.5.2012 the respondent lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Indore under section 498A/34 and 506 of the IPC and on basis of this report the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners No.1 to 4 and 6 which were subsequently quashed by the Hon’ble apex Court and hence on the same set of facts after 15 days of lodging the report the application under section 12 of the Act cannot be proceeded. 14. For the aforesaid purpose the contents of the FIR registered under section 498A IPC and the complaint under Domestic Violence Act have to be considered in juxtaposition. 14. For the aforesaid purpose the contents of the FIR registered under section 498A IPC and the complaint under Domestic Violence Act have to be considered in juxtaposition. The relevant portion of the FIR dated 2.5.2012 reads as under:- Qfj;kfn;k us gejkg vius firk jrkdj f’kUns ds Fkkuk vkdj ekSf[kd fjiksVZ fd;k fd esjh ‘kknh fnukad 24-6-2009 LofIuy firk vfuy dksYgs ds lkekftd jhfr fjokt ls gqbZ FkhA ‘kknh ckn eq>s djhc 2 ekg Bhd j[kk mlds ckn ifr Lokfizy lkl izfrHkk llqj vfuy o uun L=sgk dgus yxs fd rsjs ekrk firk us ngst esa dqN ugha fn;k tcfd rsjs firk yksdk;qDr esa ukSdjh djrs gSa rw vius firk ls 10 rksyk lksuk ds tsoj ,d ek#rh dkj o 1 yk[k #i;s uxn ysdj vkA esjs ekrk firk us ‘kknh esa gh 5 yk[k #i;s [kpZ fd;s rFkk viuh gSfl;r vuqlkj lkjk ?kj x`gLFkh dk lkeku fn;k gSA og 10 rksyk lksuk] ek#rh dkj o 1 yk[k #i;s uxn ugha ns ldrs rks bu lHkh us esjs lkFk ekjihV dh o esjs ifr cky idM+dj ekjihV dh rFkk llqj us eq>ls xkyh xqIrk dh vkSj cksys vxj rqEgkjh ngst nsus dh vkSdkr ugha Fkh rks gels ;g fj’rk D;ksa fd;k ;g ckr eSaus vius ekrk firk dks crk;h rks ekrk firk us Hkh esjs llqjky okyksa dks dkQh le>kus dk iz;kl fd;k ijarq esjs llqjky okys ekuus dks rS;kj ugha gq, vkSj cksys fd gekjk csVk bathfu;j gS mls dksbZ Hkh yM+dh fey tk;sxh tks vPNk [kklk ngst o uxnh ysdj vk;sxh ge rqEgkjh yM+dh dks ugha j[ksxsaA mlds ckn esjs llqjky ls fnukad 14-7-11 dks èkkjk 9 dk okn yxk;k vkSj xokg gksus ds igys gh mUgksaus izdj.k ukWV izsl dj fy;k tcfd llqjky esa gh jguk pkgrh Fkh ijarq esjs llqjky okys fcuk ngst ds eq>s j[kuk ugha pkgrs Fks vkSj eSa viuk ifjokj gS blfy;s lc lgu djrh jgh ijarq esjs ifr lkl llqj o uun eq>s vk;s fnu de ngst dh ckr ds rkus nsdj ekjihV ‘kkjhfjd o ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djrs jgs vkSj fnukad 30-4-2012 dks cksys fd vxj gekjh ekax iwjh ugha dh ge rq>s tku ls ekj nsaxs bl izdkj eq>s esjs ifr lkl llqj o uun us 10 rksyk lksuk] ek#rh dkj vkSj 1 yk[k #i;k ngst dh ekax dks ysdj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj ‘kkjhfjd o ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r fd;k gS eSa vc llqjky izrkM+uk ls rax vk pqdh gw¡ vkSj dksbZ le>kSrk ugha pkgrh oju dkuwuh dk;Zokgh pkgrh gwa fjiksVZ djus esjs firk ds lkFk Fkkus vk;h gwa dk;Zokgh dh tkos fjiksVZ i<+dj ns[kk lgh gksus ij gLrk{kj fd;kA 15. And and relevant portion of the complaint under section 12 of the Act reads as under :- eq>s esjs llqjky okyksa us 1&2 ekg rd rks Bhd j[kk] ysfdu mlds ckn esjs ifr LofIuy] lkl izfrHkk] llqj vfuy o uun Lusgk eq>ls dgus yxs fd rsjs ekrk&firk us ngst esa dqN ugha fn;k] tc fd rsjs firk yksdk;qDr esa ukSdjh djrs gSaA rw vius firk ls 10 rksyk lksuk ds tsoj] ,d ek#fr dkj ,oa 1 yk[k #i;s uxn ysdj vkA esjs }kjk bu yksxksa ls dgk x;k fd esjs firk dh bruh gSfl;r ugha gS fd og bruh phtsa vki yksxksa dks ns ldsaA esjs ifr ,oa muds ifjokj ds lnL; ukjkt gks x;s vkSj esjs lkFk ekjihV dhA esjs ifr us esjs lkFk ykr eqDdksa ls ekjihV dj eka cgu dh xanh&xanh xkfy;ka nsdj cky idM+dj fnokyksa ls iVdk] esjs jksus ij esjs ifr us gkFk ls esjk ewag nckdj vkSj esjh lkl us eq> o rsjs eka cki dks tku ls [kRe dj rsjh cguksa dk vigj.k djokdj rsjs edku ij dCtk dj ysaxsA esjs llqj eq>s xanh&xanh xkyh nsrs gq, dgus yxs fd vxj rqEgkjh vkSdkr ugha Fkh rks gekjs ;gka fj’rk D;ksa fd;kA ;g ckr eSaus vius ekrk&firk dks crkbZ rks esjs ekrk&firk us esjs ifr ,oa lkl&llqj dks le>kus dk cgqr iz;kl fd;k] fdarq os yksx ugha ekus ,oa dgus yxs fd gekjk yM+dk bathfu;j gS mls dksbZ Hkh yM+dh fey tk,xh tks vPNk&[kklk ngst ysdj vk,xh] ge vkidh yM+dh dks ugha j[ksaxsA esjs firk }kjk eq>s le>kb’k nh xbZ fd vHkh ubZ&ubZ ‘kknh gS èkhjs&èkhjs lc dqN Bhd gks tk,xkA eSa viuk ?kj uk fcxM+s blfy, lc dqN pqipki lgu djrh jghA esjs llqjky okys vk;s fnu esjs lkFk ngst dh ekax dks ysdj ekjihV djus yxsA fnukad 23-10-2009 dks esjs ifr] lkl&llqj o uun us esjs lkFk ekjihV dh vkSj eq>s /kDdk ekjdj igus gq, diM+ksa esa ?kj ls fudky fn;k vkSj eq>ls dgk fd ek#fr dkj] lksuk o uxnh #i;s ysdj gh vkuk vU;Fkk er vkuk vxj fcuk fy;s vkbZ rks rq>s tku ls [kRe dj nsaxsA 16. From the reading of both the aforesaid complaints it can be inferred that the respondent has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. From the reading of both the aforesaid complaints it can be inferred that the respondent has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. It is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case quashed the criminal proceedings which were initiated in pursuance to the FIR dated 2.5.2012. And having being found that the respondent has more or less alleged similar allegations against the petitioners in the complaint under section 12 of the Act, and there is no allegation by the respondent that between 2.5.2012 to 17.5.2012, she was subjected to cruelty. Form the above analysis I found that it is a fit case for quashment of complaint. 17. Thus the petition is allowed and the complaint filed by the respondent under section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act is hereby quashed.