Smt. Ram Siya Devi v. Shashi Prabha & others) Under Sections

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Ayub learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pakaj Kumar Rai learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding of Compliant Case No. 805/2023 (Smt. Ram Siya Devi Vs. Shashi Prabha & others) Under Sections 5, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Protection of Domestic Violence Act 2005 alongwith order dated 01.03.2023 Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate VI Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party no.2 had lodged proceedings under Sections 5, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Protection of Domestic Violence Act 2005 on 1.3.2023 against the applicant, who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the opposite party no.2. Marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the son of opposite party no.2 on 12.5.2013. It is alleged that though the opposite party no.2 mother-in-law was treating and keeping care of the applicant daughter-in-law but the conduct of the applicant daughter-in- law was not good as she used to subject the opposite party no.2 mother-in-law to domestic violence as even otherwise all sorts of harassment was being meted out and on a complaint being raised by the mother-in-law opposite party no.2 the applicant daughter-in-law used to call are parents and further the allegation is that on 4.4.2018 the father of the applicant herein had lodged complaint before S.S.P. and District Magistrate and before the National Women Commission and on 27.4.2018 the police came there and took away the valuables of the opposite party no.2 and also the son.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even previously also on 24.7.2018 the applicant herein had lodged proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act on 24.7.2018 being FIR No.0033 against her in-laws. He further submits that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are being also pending.

5. In nutshell, the submission is that primarily no offence whatsoever has been committed and further the complaint has been lodged in the year 2023 whereas as per the own saying and the case of the opposite party no.2 the incident is of the year 2018. Further submission is that the falsity in the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 is further writ large from the fact that there happened to be an order passed on 24.3.2025 wherein the father and the mother of the applicant were expunged and the names stood deleted in the proceedings. Next submission is that the opposite party no.2 faction have obtained interim protection in the proceedings before this Court with respect to the FIR.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that since no orders have been passed till date under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act, 2005 and only notices have been issued of the applicant herein has already put in appearance while filing written statement thus it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings taking legal and factual grounds which are available under law.

7. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and after perusing the record the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceedings at this stage. Apparently, proceedings under Domestic Violence Act stood lodged in the year 2023 against the applicant and her father and brother, however, there happens to be an order dated 24.3.2025 that no case was made out against the father and the brother of the applicant. The Court finds from the order sheet that on 5.3.2025 followed on 8.4.2024 that the applicant herein has already put her appearance and the written statement has also been filed. The question as to whether any domestic violence have been meted to opposite party no.2 at the end of the applicant depends upon the nature of the allegations and continuance of the proceedings while recording findings in that regard. At this stage when challenge has been raised to the complaint and the issuance of the notice what would be relevant would be a prima facie satisfaction of the court that the proceedings are liable to be conducted and they are not frivolous.

8. In Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of judicial intervention under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS and it has been observed as under: - "35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 402 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."

9. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and further the applicant herself put in appearance while submitting written statement and she is contesting the matter, thus the Court declines to interfere at this stage after evaluating the over all facts situation bearing in mind the nature of the allegations.

10. The application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds while contesting the matter on merits and the Court has no reason to disbelieve that the contention so raised shall be decided in correct perspective. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 piyush

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Ayub learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pakaj Kumar Rai learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding of Compliant Case No. 805/2023 (Smt. Ram Siya Devi Vs. Shashi Prabha & others) Under Sections 5, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Protection of Domestic Violence Act 2005 alongwith order dated 01.03.2023 Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate VI Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party no.2 had lodged proceedings under Sections 5, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Protection of Domestic Violence Act 2005 on 1.3.2023 against the applicant, who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the opposite party no.2. Marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the son of opposite party no.2 on 12.5.2013. It is alleged that though the opposite party no.2 mother-in-law was treating and keeping care of the applicant daughter-in-law but the conduct of the applicant daughter-in- law was not good as she used to subject the opposite party no.2 mother-in-law to domestic violence as even otherwise all sorts of harassment was being meted out and on a complaint being raised by the mother-in-law opposite party no.2 the applicant daughter-in-law used to call are parents and further the allegation is that on 4.4.2018 the father of the applicant herein had lodged complaint before S.S.P. and District Magistrate and before the National Women Commission and on 27.4.2018 the police came there and took away the valuables of the opposite party no.2 and also the son.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even previously also on 24.7.2018 the applicant herein had lodged proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act on 24.7.2018 being FIR No.0033 against her in-laws. He further submits that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are being also pending.

5. In nutshell, the submission is that primarily no offence whatsoever has been committed and further the complaint has been lodged in the year 2023 whereas as per the own saying and the case of the opposite party no.2 the incident is of the year 2018. Further submission is that the falsity in the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 is further writ large from the fact that there happened to be an order passed on 24.3.2025 wherein the father and the mother of the applicant were expunged and the names stood deleted in the proceedings. Next submission is that the opposite party no.2 faction have obtained interim protection in the proceedings before this Court with respect to the FIR.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that since no orders have been passed till date under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act, 2005 and only notices have been issued of the applicant herein has already put in appearance while filing written statement thus it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings taking legal and factual grounds which are available under law.

7. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and after perusing the record the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceedings at this stage. Apparently, proceedings under Domestic Violence Act stood lodged in the year 2023 against the applicant and her father and brother, however, there happens to be an order dated 24.3.2025 that no case was made out against the father and the brother of the applicant. The Court finds from the order sheet that on 5.3.2025 followed on 8.4.2024 that the applicant herein has already put her appearance and the written statement has also been filed. The question as to whether any domestic violence have been meted to opposite party no.2 at the end of the applicant depends upon the nature of the allegations and continuance of the proceedings while recording findings in that regard. At this stage when challenge has been raised to the complaint and the issuance of the notice what would be relevant would be a prima facie satisfaction of the court that the proceedings are liable to be conducted and they are not frivolous.

8. In Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of judicial intervention under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS and it has been observed as under: - "35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 402 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."

9. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and further the applicant herself put in appearance while submitting written statement and she is contesting the matter, thus the Court declines to interfere at this stage after evaluating the over all facts situation bearing in mind the nature of the allegations.

10. The application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds while contesting the matter on merits and the Court has no reason to disbelieve that the contention so raised shall be decided in correct perspective. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 piyush