ORDER : This petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This is a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the impugned order dated 31/3/2018 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoovina Hadagali, in Crl.Misc.No.72/2018 initiating the proceedings against the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘D.V.Act’) claiming several reliefs. 4. She has stated that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 before the Court below and that their marriage was solemnized on 12/5/2013. She has alleged that as per the demand, dowry was paid to respondent No.1 and after the marriage, for about one week, she was looked after properly by the husband and respondents. Thereafter, her husband was transferred to Bangaluru and he used to come twice a week. Her husband started demanding money for renovation of house and that he demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, if she desires to join him at Bengaluru. After July 2013, she started residing with her husband at Bangaluru. Her brother has given Rs.3,00,000/-to respondent No.1 to take a house at Chandra Layout and he has never returned the said amount. Subsequently, she left her husband and went to the house of her parents and filed the petition under D.V.Act. 5. The petitioner has stated that the Court below has seriously erred in passing the impugned order and there is miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. The petitioner who is the married sister of respondent No.1, at no point of time had shared the house with the respondent herein. There are no allegations made against the petitioner nor any relief is sought for against the petitioner in the petition. The learned Magistrate has not called for domestic Officers report before registering the case which is mandatory. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent served unrepresented. 7. The learned Magistrate has not called for domestic Officers report before registering the case which is mandatory. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent served unrepresented. 7. A plain reading of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the D.V. Act goes to show that her marriage with respondent No.1 before the Court below was performed on 12/5/2013 and she has stated in para 7 of the petition itself that she went to the house of her husband at Bangaluru in the month of July 2013. It is also stated that the petitioner herein is married sister of respondent No.1. A copy of her election I.D. Card and ration card are produced to show that she is married to one Siddanagouda of Koppal taluk. The respondent has not stated in her petition as to whether the petitioner herein is a married or unmarried sister of her husband. No reliefs are sought for against the petitioner in the petition filed by her, except stating that protection Order under Section 18 of the D.V. Act be passed. Absolutely, there are no allegations against the petitioner that she caused domestic violence when the respondent stayed with her. The learned Magistrate has also not secured the domestic violence report from the concerned officer in order to show that the petitioner herein has also caused domestic violence to the petitioner. The prayer in the petition is against her husband for monetary relief and also for protection order. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.72/2018 under the provisions of D.V. Act amounts to misuse of process of law and as such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the order dated 31/3/2018 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoovina Hadagali, pending in Crl.Misc. No.78/2018 so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed.