2) Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and perused the material on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners already covered by the expression of this Court in Gaddameedi Nagamani V. The State of Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor (Crl.P (SR) Nos.22371 of 2015 and batch, dated 17.07.2015). Undisputedly, the scope of Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act is not referred in earlier expressions of the Apex Court, 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). It is needless to say the remedy is to file an appeal against the order in D.V.C as per Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as an efficacious remedy is any order includes taken on file by the learned Magistrate by application of mind. 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.
