Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners against the office objection on maintainability of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) against the D.V.C proceedings taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, besides saying those are civil in nature. 2. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents in D.V.C) placed reliance on the expression of the Apex Court in Ashish Dixit and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. Undisputedly, the scope of Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act is not referred therein even much less came for consideration but for the general observation saying the refusal to entertain the quash saying not connected with offence in the domestic violence is not sustainable (It is because the procedure is almost akin to Section 125 of Cr.PC and quasi criminal in nature). In fact, the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal laid down the seven guidelines which include showing of no other alternative or efficacious remedy as per clause (f) of (a to g) to maintain the quash proceedings. Here, once there is an efficacious appeal remedy provided undisputedly even to impugn the taking of cognizance (taken on file) of the matter for the relief sought, such order to impugn before Court of Sessions, this Court is not inclined to stretch its hand to admit for quash the proceedings. Hence, the Criminal Petition is not entertainable for appeal remedy available. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is rejected. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.