The Adalat Prasad bar does not apply when notice is issued under Section 12 of the DV Act.

Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua.

The petitioners—her husband and his parents—challenged the proceedings, asserting that they lived separately from respondent No. 1, that no specific allegations were made against them, and that they had been improperly impleaded.

The Magistrate had issued notice and directed the petitioners to stay away from respondent No. 1 and refrain from conduct endangering her health, safety, life, or well-being.

The High Court heard the petitioners; there was no appearance for the respondents.

Whether proceedings initiated on an application under Section 12 of the DV Act are criminal proceedings so as to attract the bar against a Magistrate recalling or altering an order at the notice stage.

Whether the petitioners could seek before the Magistrate the dropping of proceedings against them on the grounds that they were separately residing and that no specific allegations had been made.

Section 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 provides for an application to the Magistrate and the calling of a response from the respondent.

Relying on Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 446, the Court stated that proceedings at the stage of issuing notice under Section 12 are not, in the strict sense, criminal proceedings: notice calls for a response so the Magistrate can consider the parties’ submissions and pass an appropriate order.

Accordingly, the rule in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 338, concerning recall of process in criminal proceedings, does not apply in the same way at the Section 12 notice stage.

After considering the response, the Magistrate may reconsider the matter, including recalling the order requiring participation or modifying or cancelling interim monetary relief where warranted.

The petitioners’ objections concerned their alleged lack of involvement and separate residence. The Court did not determine those factual claims on the merits.

It held that, because the Section 12 notice stage is distinct from criminal prosecution, the petitioners could raise their objections in a reply and seek an order dropping the proceedings against them.

The Magistrate could then assess the material and submissions and, if no case for proceeding against the petitioners was made out, recall the order calling upon them to participate and drop the proceedings.

If such an application is filed, the Magistrate must hear the parties and decide it in accordance with law, preferably within one month of filing.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Magistrate for information and compliance.