ORDER : 1. Mr. Shaival M. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 25.06.2019 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2802 of 2018, and further prayer has been made to transfer Criminal Misc. Application No. 2150 of 2018 from the Court of 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge to any other Court of similar jurisdiction in the same division. 2. Mr. Shaival M. Patel, learned Advocate, states that the petitioner had filed the application under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and the petitioner found the learned Magistrate to be bias and prejudicial, who was compelling parties to settle the dispute. The petitioner is aggrieved on that count stating that it is the assurance of the fair trial which is a first imperative of dispensation of justice and, according to the petitioner, it should not be compromised in any manner and therefore, expects that the criminal trial is to be fair, impartial and uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. Mr. Patel states that public confidence in the fairness of trial would be seriously undermined and therefore prays for transfer of the case to any other Court of similar jurisdiction. 3. It is to be noted that the grounds raised for grievance are towards the approach of the Judicial Magistrate of insisting settlement in matrimonial dispute. The proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.V. Act’), came into force to provide more effective protection of the rights of the women guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 3.1 The Act, in order to fulfilling the objects, has given powers and duties to Protection Officers and Service Providers. It has also laid down the functions of the Protection Officers. 3.2 Chapter IV deals with procedure for obtaining order of reliefs. 3.1 The Act, in order to fulfilling the objects, has given powers and duties to Protection Officers and Service Providers. It has also laid down the functions of the Protection Officers. 3.2 Chapter IV deals with procedure for obtaining order of reliefs. On an application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, a notice of the date of hearing would be fixed which would be given by the Magistrate to the Protection Officer who gets it served by such means as may be prescribed on the respondents, and the declaration of service of notice made by Protection Officer in the prescribed form would be a proof of having served the respondents. The D.V. Act mandates that at any stage of the proceedings, the Magistrate may direct the respondent or the aggrieved, either singly or jointly to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who possess such qualification and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. Assistance of welfare experts are also secured by the Magistrate. A Magistrate would ensures that the proceedings be conducted in camera, if circumstances of the case so warrant. 4. Thus, it would be appropriate to appreciate the fact that the learned Magistrate has performed his duty as per the law. It was incumbent on the Magistrate concerned to initiate for counselling so as to explore the scope of settlement between the aggrieved couples. It is unfortunate to note that such efforts of the Judicial Magistrate was not appreciated by the petitioner. 4.1 The concerned Magistrate is in seisin of the case by way of Domestic Incident Report (D.I.R.) and the D.I.R. is filed as per Form-I prescribed under the D.V. Act and the application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is in accordance to Form-II. The proceedings before the counsellor would be under the general supervision of the Court or the Protection Officer or both as per Rule 14 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Rules, 2006. The counsellor has to strive to arrive at a settlement of the dispute by suggesting measures for redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved person by taking into account the measures or remedies suggested by the parties for counselling and reformulating the terms for the settlement, wherever required, as provided in Sub-rule (9) of Rule 14 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Rules, 2006. The counsellor is required to submit his report to the Magistrate as expeditiously as possible for appropriate action and in event the counsellor arrives at a resolution of the dispute, he shall record the terms of settlement and get the same endorsed by the parties. Thus, the whole of the object for referring the matter to the counsellor is to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties. 5. The learned Magistrate was well within his right to compel the parties to go for settlement of the dispute, as it was under the duty of the Magistrate to compel the aggrieved person and refer the matter to the counsellor under the D.V. Act. There is no prejudice caused to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate was not at all biased rather was working within the provisions of the scope of D.V. Act. 6. In view of the above observations and discussions, the present petition requires no consideration. Hence, the present petition is rejected.