ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the Complaint No. 354/2012-2013 be quashed. The second respondent has filed a complaint as at Annexure-A before the first respondent. In the said complaint, the second respondent has urged the intervention of the first respondent to provide her justice since according to her she has been put to harassment by the petitioners in respect of the premises belonging to her which was in occupation of the petitioners. The first respondent has issued the notice dated 23-8-2013. The petitioner though had appeared before the authority has thereafter assailed the same on the matter being adjourned. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the proceedings before the first respondent would refer to the provision contained in Section 9 of the Karnataka State Commission for Women Act, 1995. It is contended that the scope of consideration by the first respondent is only limited to the power available under that section and as such, in the nature of complaint which has been made by the second respondent, the first respondent could not have entertained the same. 3. Learned Counsel for the second respondent would contend that under sub-section (1) of clause (f) to Section 9 of the said Act, the first respondent has certain suo motu powers with regard to the protection of the rights of the women and therefore the petitioners in any event cannot have any grievance. At this juncture, when only a notice has been issued and the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to appear before the Commission is the contention. 4. Learned Government Advocate on obtaining instructions from the first respondent would submit that such notice has been issued to find out as to whether any amicable settlement could be reached between the parties. 5. In the light of the above, I have perused the petition papers and also the notice. The provision contained in Section 9 of the said Act and the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the case of Shivaram alias Bhadravathi Shivaram v. The Police Sub-Inspector, New Town Police Station, Bhadravathi and Others, 2009(4) Kar. 5. In the light of the above, I have perused the petition papers and also the notice. The provision contained in Section 9 of the said Act and the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the case of Shivaram alias Bhadravathi Shivaram v. The Police Sub-Inspector, New Town Police Station, Bhadravathi and Others, 2009(4) Kar. L.J. 264 :2009(4) AIR R. 146, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the scope of Section 9 of the said Act, with regard to the custody of the child belonging to the parties had arrived at a conclusion that such consideration to be made by the authority was beyond the scope of the power available and as such, even before issue of notice, the Commission was required to take note of the nature of the complaint and thereafter decide accordingly is also perused. 6. Learned Counsel for the second respondent on the other hand has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. Narayan v. Karnataka State Commission for Women, Bangalore, 2009(3) Kar. L.J. 305 (DB): AIR 2009 Kant. 76 (DB), wherein this Court while considering the matter where the party was before this Court assailing the notice issued by the Commission had held that it was for the appellant therein to appear before the Commission and put forth the contention and cannot rush to this Court when a notice is issued. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would however seek to distinguish the said decision by indicating that the subject-matter involved therein was a larger issue relating to the protection of the rights of the women and therefore such a decision had been rendered. 8. In the light of the rival contentions and the decisions rendered by this Court, in the instant facts, the second respondent no doubt has made a complaint, the genesis for which arose from the transaction where under the petitioners were put in possession of the premises belonging to the second respondent. In that light, the second respondent had indicated that the mental torture and humiliation that was caused to her and therefore had sought assistance of the first respondent. In that light, the second respondent had indicated that the mental torture and humiliation that was caused to her and therefore had sought assistance of the first respondent. Though the right as sought in relation to the immovable property may not ultimately arise for consideration before the first respondent, in a matter of the present nature where the first respondent has issued the notice to the petitioners certainly at this stage, I am of the opinion that they would not have rushed to this Court since an appropriate opportunity would have been available to the first respondent to find out as to whether any amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties in that circumstance. It is only, if the same fails and the if the first respondent passes any order in the nature of adjudication, the petitioner would have the right to assail the same in any other proceedings including a petition before this Court by raising even the question of jurisdiction. Therefore at this stage, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings before the first respondent. 9. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to only explore the possibility of settlement between parties on their appearance and in that light, dispose of the proceedings before it. 10. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.