Smt. Deepka Namdev v. Naveen Chandra Namdev and others), under Sections

1. Heard Sri L.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ram Manohar, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1950 of 2018 (Smt. Deepka Namdev Vs. Naveen Chandra Namdev and others), under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, pending the court of Judicial Magistrate First Jhansi against the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants happen to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of the sister-in-law and a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 06.07.2018 under Section 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 11.05.2013 and in the marriage gifts worth Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash and other gifts were offered. However, demand of dowry have been raised to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a four wheeler swift car and when the opposite party no. 2 post her marriage had gone to her maternal house then too demand was being raised. Allegations have been levelled that the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence pursuant whereto she was admitted on 11.01.2015 and further on 05.01.2017 she gave birth to a child, however, on 19.07.2017, the opposite party no. 2 was driven away and thrown out from her matrimonial house. Allegation is that on

25.04.2018 also demand of dowry was made and the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence and further proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. also stood initiated under offences under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act which is pending. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated they have not committed the said offences which is stated to have been alleged in the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only omnibus and general allegations have been levelled without there being any specific and further so far as the opposite party no. 2 to 8 are concerned, they have separate living and they have no shared household.

4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that no order whatsoever has been passed and post passing of an order for ex parte proceedings, a recall application came to be preferred by the applicants herein and the applicants have already participated in the proceedings and they have filed the written statement.

5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act while terming herself to be the wife. At the stage of filing of the complaint and issuance of the notice, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the charges as they are subject matter of proceedings what would be relevant would be a prima facie satisfaction whether the complaint is frivolous or not or it can be proceeded or not. The same depends upon the relationship and the nature of the allegations. In the present case, the opposite party no. 2 claims herself to be the wife of the applicant no. 1 at best, the applicants are in-laws. Thus, in view of the allegations come within the definition of aggrieved women under Section 2(a), as regards the facts whether there is a shared household or a domestic relationship under Section 2(s) and 2(f) of the Act is concerned, the same is dependent upon the nature of the allegations. With regard to the fact that whether the applicants herein can be termed to be respondent within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Act is also a subject matter which emanates from the nature of the allegations. Since allegations have been made pin pointedly against the applicants with regard to subjection of domestic violence at the end of the applicant, thus, the complaint cannot be outrightly rejected as the same becomes of the subject matter of trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings. 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 it 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."

7. Cumulatively analyzing the case from the four corners of law, the Court finds that since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued to the applicants, thus, it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds and also the fact that no exceptional circumstances arise.

8. Accordingly, interference declined, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds before the court below and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Rajesh

1. Heard Sri L.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ram Manohar, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1950 of 2018 (Smt. Deepka Namdev Vs. Naveen Chandra Namdev and others), under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, pending the court of Judicial Magistrate First Jhansi against the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants happen to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of the sister-in-law and a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 06.07.2018 under Section 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 11.05.2013 and in the marriage gifts worth Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash and other gifts were offered. However, demand of dowry have been raised to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a four wheeler swift car and when the opposite party no. 2 post her marriage had gone to her maternal house then too demand was being raised. Allegations have been levelled that the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence pursuant whereto she was admitted on 11.01.2015 and further on 05.01.2017 she gave birth to a child, however, on 19.07.2017, the opposite party no. 2 was driven away and thrown out from her matrimonial house. Allegation is that on

25.04.2018 also demand of dowry was made and the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence and further proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. also stood initiated under offences under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act which is pending. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated they have not committed the said offences which is stated to have been alleged in the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only omnibus and general allegations have been levelled without there being any specific and further so far as the opposite party no. 2 to 8 are concerned, they have separate living and they have no shared household.

4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that no order whatsoever has been passed and post passing of an order for ex parte proceedings, a recall application came to be preferred by the applicants herein and the applicants have already participated in the proceedings and they have filed the written statement.

5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act while terming herself to be the wife. At the stage of filing of the complaint and issuance of the notice, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the charges as they are subject matter of proceedings what would be relevant would be a prima facie satisfaction whether the complaint is frivolous or not or it can be proceeded or not. The same depends upon the relationship and the nature of the allegations. In the present case, the opposite party no. 2 claims herself to be the wife of the applicant no. 1 at best, the applicants are in-laws. Thus, in view of the allegations come within the definition of aggrieved women under Section 2(a), as regards the facts whether there is a shared household or a domestic relationship under Section 2(s) and 2(f) of the Act is concerned, the same is dependent upon the nature of the allegations. With regard to the fact that whether the applicants herein can be termed to be respondent within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Act is also a subject matter which emanates from the nature of the allegations. Since allegations have been made pin pointedly against the applicants with regard to subjection of domestic violence at the end of the applicant, thus, the complaint cannot be outrightly rejected as the same becomes of the subject matter of trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings. 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 it 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."

7. Cumulatively analyzing the case from the four corners of law, the Court finds that since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued to the applicants, thus, it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds and also the fact that no exceptional circumstances arise.

8. Accordingly, interference declined, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds before the court below and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Rajesh