Smt. Geetanjali v. Ajay Singh & others, under section

1. Heard Sri Pankaj 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 proceedings of Complaint case No. 6/XII of 2024, Smt. Geetanjali Vs. Ajay Singh & others, under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police 2005, Station Surir, District Mathura pending in the court of Gram Nyayalaya, Mant, District Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood preferred by O.P. No.2 on 15.01.2024 under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act against the applicant wherein the permanent address of O.P. No.2 was shown to be of Delhi and the address of the applicant and others who are respondents in the complaint, was of New Delhi, with an allegation that the marriage of applicant herein stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 05.10.2018 in Faridabad, Haryana. In the marriage, parents of O.P. No.2 had spent about more than Rs. 15 lacs and gifts worth huge amount was also offerred. The inlaws including the applicant were not happy with the gifts and thus sarcastic remarks were being caste upon. On the basis of the complaint so lodged under the Domestic Violence Act, notices were issued upon the applicant and an order came to be passed on 11.09.2024 for according interim compensation to the tune of Rs.1200/-. The applicant on the knowledge of the said order passed on 11.09.2024 according interim compensation to O.P. No.2 preferred a recall application in Complaint Case No. 06 of 2024, which came to be allowed on 17.03.2025 recalling the exparte order dated 11.09.2024.

4. Questioning the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act and further proceedings, the present application has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that first of all no territorial jurisdiction was with the court below, inasmuch as the cause of action either was with the Courts at Delhi or Faridabad. He further submits that even proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 354(a), 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act stood instituted by O.P. no.2 being Case Crime no.01A of 2020 wherein charge sheet came to be submitted on 15.03.2020 and cognizance order was passed on 25.06.2020 and the applicant herein along with the other accused had preferred an Application under Section 482 CrPC No.2915 of 2021, which on a compromise being entered into between the parties came to be allowed while quashing the proceedings. He submits that in the present case, the O.P. No.2, just in order to settle score and dictate the terms on the basis of omnibus and general allegations that too incorrect, has lodged the proceedings. It is thus prayed that the complaint be quashed.

6. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, once an exparte order came to be passed on 17.09.2024 and the applicant on notice, preferred an application for recalling the same and the same stood recalled on 17.03.2025 and the applicant has already put his appearance and it is for the applicant to take all the legal and factual grounds including want of the territorial jurisdiction before the court below.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be raising all the grounds that a direction be issued to the court below to decide the same in correct perspective.

8. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perusing the records, the sole question arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage.

9. 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 in paragraphs-35 and 39, 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."

10. Apparently, post lodging of the complaint under D.V. Act, an order came to be passed on 11.09.2024 according interim compensation, against which the applicant had preferred recall application which came to be allowed on 17.03.2025. Once the applicant has himself put in appearance before the court below then it is for the applicant to contest the matter taking the ground that the court which had issued notices and entertained the application does not possess the jurisdiction along with other issues.

11. Since no orders under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act has been passed and the applicant has himself participated in the proceedings, thus looking into the over all facts situation, the application stands disposed of, leaving it open for the applicant to take all the legal and factual grounds before the court below and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided in correct perspective. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj 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 proceedings of Complaint case No. 6/XII of 2024, Smt. Geetanjali Vs. Ajay Singh & others, under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police 2005, Station Surir, District Mathura pending in the court of Gram Nyayalaya, Mant, District Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood preferred by O.P. No.2 on 15.01.2024 under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act against the applicant wherein the permanent address of O.P. No.2 was shown to be of Delhi and the address of the applicant and others who are respondents in the complaint, was of New Delhi, with an allegation that the marriage of applicant herein stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 05.10.2018 in Faridabad, Haryana. In the marriage, parents of O.P. No.2 had spent about more than Rs. 15 lacs and gifts worth huge amount was also offerred. The inlaws including the applicant were not happy with the gifts and thus sarcastic remarks were being caste upon. On the basis of the complaint so lodged under the Domestic Violence Act, notices were issued upon the applicant and an order came to be passed on 11.09.2024 for according interim compensation to the tune of Rs.1200/-. The applicant on the knowledge of the said order passed on 11.09.2024 according interim compensation to O.P. No.2 preferred a recall application in Complaint Case No. 06 of 2024, which came to be allowed on 17.03.2025 recalling the exparte order dated 11.09.2024.

4. Questioning the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act and further proceedings, the present application has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that first of all no territorial jurisdiction was with the court below, inasmuch as the cause of action either was with the Courts at Delhi or Faridabad. He further submits that even proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 354(a), 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act stood instituted by O.P. no.2 being Case Crime no.01A of 2020 wherein charge sheet came to be submitted on 15.03.2020 and cognizance order was passed on 25.06.2020 and the applicant herein along with the other accused had preferred an Application under Section 482 CrPC No.2915 of 2021, which on a compromise being entered into between the parties came to be allowed while quashing the proceedings. He submits that in the present case, the O.P. No.2, just in order to settle score and dictate the terms on the basis of omnibus and general allegations that too incorrect, has lodged the proceedings. It is thus prayed that the complaint be quashed.

6. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, once an exparte order came to be passed on 17.09.2024 and the applicant on notice, preferred an application for recalling the same and the same stood recalled on 17.03.2025 and the applicant has already put his appearance and it is for the applicant to take all the legal and factual grounds including want of the territorial jurisdiction before the court below.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be raising all the grounds that a direction be issued to the court below to decide the same in correct perspective.

8. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perusing the records, the sole question arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage.

9. 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 in paragraphs-35 and 39, 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."

10. Apparently, post lodging of the complaint under D.V. Act, an order came to be passed on 11.09.2024 according interim compensation, against which the applicant had preferred recall application which came to be allowed on 17.03.2025. Once the applicant has himself put in appearance before the court below then it is for the applicant to contest the matter taking the ground that the court which had issued notices and entertained the application does not possess the jurisdiction along with other issues.

11. Since no orders under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act has been passed and the applicant has himself participated in the proceedings, thus looking into the over all facts situation, the application stands disposed of, leaving it open for the applicant to take all the legal and factual grounds before the court below and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided in correct perspective. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)