Smt. Kajal Verma & Shiva v. Shivam Magrotiya and others), Under Section

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer, for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the proceeding of Case No. 2325 of 2024 (Smt. Kajal Verma & Shiva Vs. Shivam Magrotiya and others), Under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah pending in the court of Incharge Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime against Women), Etah.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the O.P. No.2 being the wife of applicant no.1, marriage whereof was solemnized on 23.06.2023 against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, jeth, jethani, cousin mother-in-law, married nanad and bua saas with the allegation that though in the marriage gifts and expenditure worth Rs.35,00,000/- were offered, however, additional demand of Rs.20,00,000/- was made. When the said demand was not being satisfied, then the O.P. No.2 was assaulted, pursuant whereto she sustained injury and blood oozed out from her hand. Further allegation is that the husband/applicant no.1 is not discharging the obligations and the duties which he a husband is to discharge towards his wife in the shape of marital relationship. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even a first information report stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants, who happen to be husband, father-in- law, jeth and jethani, under Sections 498-A, 323, 307, 354, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and a charge sheet came to be submitted, however, mediation could not be materialized. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that totally false and frivolous allegations have been leveled and there has been no domestic violence. He further submits that the O.P. No.2 is not an aggrieved person as per Section 2(a) of the Act and further there is no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act and further there is no shared household.

4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, at the stage when the present proceedings have been triggered, only notices have been issued. There are no orders passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and in case, any orders are passed, then they are subject to challenge under Section 29 by way of appeal or under Section 25 by way of appropriate proceedings. He submits that allegations are there which cannot be said to be frivolous, as the issue is triable.

5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

6. Apparently, in the present case, challenge has been made in the complaint lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicant who happens to be the husband, father-in-law, jeth, jethani, cousin mother-in- law, married nanad and bua saas. The question as to whether there is a shared household as per Section 2(s) is a question of fact and further where there is any domestic relationship under Section 2(f) also depends upon the nature of the allegations though the O.P. No.2 prima facie appears to be an aggrieved person being a woman who alleges subjection to domestic violence. Since in the present proceeding, it would not be appropriate to test the veracity and the merits of the allegations, thus this Court refrains itself from adjudging the same. Apart from the same, there happens to be no orders passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued. Thus, in case any orders are passed, it is always open for the applicant to take proceedings under Sections 25 and 29 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in one of the recent decisions in Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025, Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, decided on 19.05.2025, had flagged a note of caution while observing 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."

7. Looking into the over all facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind, the nature of allegations so leveled and also the fact that no orders have been passed and only notices have been issued, no case for interference is made out.

8. Accordingly, interference is declined. Application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to contest the trial while taking all legal and factual issues, which are advisable and permissible under law and in case, the same are taken, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer, for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the proceeding of Case No. 2325 of 2024 (Smt. Kajal Verma & Shiva Vs. Shivam Magrotiya and others), Under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah pending in the court of Incharge Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime against Women), Etah.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the O.P. No.2 being the wife of applicant no.1, marriage whereof was solemnized on 23.06.2023 against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, jeth, jethani, cousin mother-in-law, married nanad and bua saas with the allegation that though in the marriage gifts and expenditure worth Rs.35,00,000/- were offered, however, additional demand of Rs.20,00,000/- was made. When the said demand was not being satisfied, then the O.P. No.2 was assaulted, pursuant whereto she sustained injury and blood oozed out from her hand. Further allegation is that the husband/applicant no.1 is not discharging the obligations and the duties which he a husband is to discharge towards his wife in the shape of marital relationship. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even a first information report stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants, who happen to be husband, father-in- law, jeth and jethani, under Sections 498-A, 323, 307, 354, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and a charge sheet came to be submitted, however, mediation could not be materialized. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that totally false and frivolous allegations have been leveled and there has been no domestic violence. He further submits that the O.P. No.2 is not an aggrieved person as per Section 2(a) of the Act and further there is no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act and further there is no shared household.

4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, at the stage when the present proceedings have been triggered, only notices have been issued. There are no orders passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and in case, any orders are passed, then they are subject to challenge under Section 29 by way of appeal or under Section 25 by way of appropriate proceedings. He submits that allegations are there which cannot be said to be frivolous, as the issue is triable.

5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

6. Apparently, in the present case, challenge has been made in the complaint lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicant who happens to be the husband, father-in-law, jeth, jethani, cousin mother-in- law, married nanad and bua saas. The question as to whether there is a shared household as per Section 2(s) is a question of fact and further where there is any domestic relationship under Section 2(f) also depends upon the nature of the allegations though the O.P. No.2 prima facie appears to be an aggrieved person being a woman who alleges subjection to domestic violence. Since in the present proceeding, it would not be appropriate to test the veracity and the merits of the allegations, thus this Court refrains itself from adjudging the same. Apart from the same, there happens to be no orders passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued. Thus, in case any orders are passed, it is always open for the applicant to take proceedings under Sections 25 and 29 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in one of the recent decisions in Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025, Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, decided on 19.05.2025, had flagged a note of caution while observing 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."

7. Looking into the over all facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind, the nature of allegations so leveled and also the fact that no orders have been passed and only notices have been issued, no case for interference is made out.

8. Accordingly, interference is declined. Application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to contest the trial while taking all legal and factual issues, which are advisable and permissible under law and in case, the same are taken, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)