Smt. Vandana v. Smt. Mava Devi and Others U

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the applicants who are six in number and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 1636/2023 Smt. Vandana VS. Smt. Mava Devi and Others U/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, .P.S. Akbarpur, District: Kanpur Dehat, pending before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC/CAW District: Kanpur Dehat.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant no. 1 is the mother-in-law, applicants no. 2, 4 and 5 are Jeth, applicant no. 3 is Jethani and applicant no. 6 is Nanad. The marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the son of the applicant no. 1 on 28.04.2018. However, he expired on 06.05.2023. As per the allegations contained in the complaint, the opposite party no. 2 alleges that she was subjected to domestic violence post death of her husband as she was not allowed to enter into the house with effect from 08.05.2023 and she is staying in her paternal house since 30.05.2023. Further allegation is that with respect to certain demand which is not liable to the acceded to regarding bequeathing of a will/a document in favour of the applicants of the property of the father of the opposite party no. 2 pressure was being mounted and when the opposite party no. 2 resisted the same then she was subjected to domestic violence.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not the case wherein the opposite party no. 2 is being subjected to domestic violence, however, they are being harassed at each and every point of time particularly when a first information report was lodged on 25.11.2019 in Case Crime No. 12 of 2019 under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act in which a charge sheet came to be submitted against the applicants no. 2 to 4 and an Application u/s 482 No. 29525 of 2022 was preferred by the applicants herein in which on 28.11.2022 interim protection was accorded. So much so, the deceased husband of the opposite party no. 2 was also not happy with the nature and activity of the opposite party no. 2 so he also bequeathed a will in favour of the present applicants and thereafter also a complaint was also lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under IGRS Portal with an allegation that her husband was abducted, however, a police report came to be submitted in favour of the applicant, however, now in order to some how or other exert pressure the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 has been initiated pursuant whereto the applicants have been noticed.

5. In a nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 is living in her paternal house and she is not an aggrieved person as per Section 2(a) of the Act and further they do not qualify to the respondents under Section 2(q) of the Act.

6. Countering the said submission, learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that only as per the stand of the applicant, the report of the D.P.O. has been called there has been no order passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and, thus, the case may not warrant interference at this stage as it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings before the court below and to take all legal and factual grounds in that regard.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Apparently, a complaint is stated to have been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 12 of the DV Act regarding subjection of domestic violence. Importantly, opposite party no. 2 happens to be the dauther-in-law and the applicants herein are mother-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and Nanad, thus, there exist a domestic relationship under Section 2(f). The question as to whether the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence is a matter of trial on the basis of the allegations in the complaint itself.

9. Insofar as the question of share household under Section 2(s) is concerned, the same is to be decided at the stage of trial particularly when the opposite party no. 2 claims her right as a widow of the deceased who are the blood relatives of the other applicants. Moreso, no order under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act has been passed and once an order is passed then the same is amenable to remedies as available under the Act. Recently, the scope of proceedings u/s 482 CrPC/528 BNSS came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) decided on 19.05.2025, Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of intervention in the matters where complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, wherein para 35 and 39 was observed as under.- "...35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated.

39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice."

10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants have themselves put in appearance before the court below. Once the position being so, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere at this stage. However, the applicant is at liberty to take all legal and factual grounds which are available under law and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.

11. With the said observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Rajesh

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the applicants who are six in number and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 1636/2023 Smt. Vandana VS. Smt. Mava Devi and Others U/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, .P.S. Akbarpur, District: Kanpur Dehat, pending before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC/CAW District: Kanpur Dehat.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant no. 1 is the mother-in-law, applicants no. 2, 4 and 5 are Jeth, applicant no. 3 is Jethani and applicant no. 6 is Nanad. The marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with the son of the applicant no. 1 on 28.04.2018. However, he expired on 06.05.2023. As per the allegations contained in the complaint, the opposite party no. 2 alleges that she was subjected to domestic violence post death of her husband as she was not allowed to enter into the house with effect from 08.05.2023 and she is staying in her paternal house since 30.05.2023. Further allegation is that with respect to certain demand which is not liable to the acceded to regarding bequeathing of a will/a document in favour of the applicants of the property of the father of the opposite party no. 2 pressure was being mounted and when the opposite party no. 2 resisted the same then she was subjected to domestic violence.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not the case wherein the opposite party no. 2 is being subjected to domestic violence, however, they are being harassed at each and every point of time particularly when a first information report was lodged on 25.11.2019 in Case Crime No. 12 of 2019 under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act in which a charge sheet came to be submitted against the applicants no. 2 to 4 and an Application u/s 482 No. 29525 of 2022 was preferred by the applicants herein in which on 28.11.2022 interim protection was accorded. So much so, the deceased husband of the opposite party no. 2 was also not happy with the nature and activity of the opposite party no. 2 so he also bequeathed a will in favour of the present applicants and thereafter also a complaint was also lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under IGRS Portal with an allegation that her husband was abducted, however, a police report came to be submitted in favour of the applicant, however, now in order to some how or other exert pressure the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 has been initiated pursuant whereto the applicants have been noticed.

5. In a nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 is living in her paternal house and she is not an aggrieved person as per Section 2(a) of the Act and further they do not qualify to the respondents under Section 2(q) of the Act.

6. Countering the said submission, learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that only as per the stand of the applicant, the report of the D.P.O. has been called there has been no order passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and, thus, the case may not warrant interference at this stage as it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings before the court below and to take all legal and factual grounds in that regard.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Apparently, a complaint is stated to have been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 12 of the DV Act regarding subjection of domestic violence. Importantly, opposite party no. 2 happens to be the dauther-in-law and the applicants herein are mother-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and Nanad, thus, there exist a domestic relationship under Section 2(f). The question as to whether the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence is a matter of trial on the basis of the allegations in the complaint itself.

9. Insofar as the question of share household under Section 2(s) is concerned, the same is to be decided at the stage of trial particularly when the opposite party no. 2 claims her right as a widow of the deceased who are the blood relatives of the other applicants. Moreso, no order under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act has been passed and once an order is passed then the same is amenable to remedies as available under the Act. Recently, the scope of proceedings u/s 482 CrPC/528 BNSS came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) decided on 19.05.2025, Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of intervention in the matters where complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, wherein para 35 and 39 was observed as under.- "...35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated.

39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice."

10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants have themselves put in appearance before the court below. Once the position being so, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere at this stage. However, the applicant is at liberty to take all legal and factual grounds which are available under law and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.

11. With the said observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Rajesh