Mradula Singh Gautam v. Tarun Singh & Others), under Section
Case Details
Acts & Sections
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, 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 applicants for quashing the order dated 24.07.2024, 09.01.2025 & 08.04.2025, as well as stay the entire proceeding of Case No. 2517/IX/2024 (Mradula Singh Gautam Vs. Tarun Singh & Others), under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) IV, Banda, P.S.- Pailani, District- Banda.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 24.07.2024 against the applicants, who happen to be the husband and the in-laws with incorrect and false allegations. He submits that the order dated 24.07.2024 issuing notice to the applicants is on printed proforma and further there is an inherent defect in the swearing clause also, which goes to the root of the matter. He submits that once the notices have been issued, then the same should be after application of mind.
4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that the principles which are enshrined for summoning are different from issuance of notice. He submits that what would be relevant would be the fact as to whether prima facie case is made out for issuance of notice and since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act, thus it would be for the applicant to contest the proceedings on merits taking all legal and factual grounds and in case, any orders are passed then the remedy under Section 25 of the Act or by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act can be invoked.
5. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the records, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention.
6. Apparently, a complaint stood filed by O.P. No.2, who happens to be the wife of the applicant no.1, marriage whereof was solemnized on 24.06.2019, against the applicants, husband as well as family members. This Court at this stage when only notices have been issued is not required to go into the merits of the charges, as they are the subject matter of proceedings. What would be relevant would be the fact as to whether the complainant, who has preferred the complaint answers the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act and she has been subjected to domestic violence under Section 2(f) and further applicants answer the description of respondents under Section 2(r) and there is a shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act.
7. Looking into the nature of the allegations contained therein, with regard to subjection of domestic violence and also demand of dowry, proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act stood initiated being FIR no.145 of 2022 and regarding subjection to domestic violence, the date has been shown to be 16.02.2022 at 10:30, wherein the applicants have been alleged to have inflicted injuries.
8. Thus, prima facie, it cannot be said that the complaint is frivolous as the merits are to be adjudged in the proceedings. As regards the submissions of the applicants that the issuance of notices is on printed proforma, this Court is of the opinion that there is a vast difference between summoning and issuance of notice. Further as regards the defect in the swearing clause is concerned, the same is subject matter which can be raised and appropriately dealt with the proceedings are allowed to continue as the same may be one of the defences. The extent of judicial intervention in the matters of the complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act, wherein no orders have been passed, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, wherein 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."
9. Cumulatively analyzing the case from the four-corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interference, accordingly, interference is declined. Application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the trial while taking all legal and factual grounds before the court below and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall consider the same in correct perspective. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, 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 applicants for quashing the order dated 24.07.2024, 09.01.2025 & 08.04.2025, as well as stay the entire proceeding of Case No. 2517/IX/2024 (Mradula Singh Gautam Vs. Tarun Singh & Others), under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) IV, Banda, P.S.- Pailani, District- Banda.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 24.07.2024 against the applicants, who happen to be the husband and the in-laws with incorrect and false allegations. He submits that the order dated 24.07.2024 issuing notice to the applicants is on printed proforma and further there is an inherent defect in the swearing clause also, which goes to the root of the matter. He submits that once the notices have been issued, then the same should be after application of mind.
4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that the principles which are enshrined for summoning are different from issuance of notice. He submits that what would be relevant would be the fact as to whether prima facie case is made out for issuance of notice and since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act, thus it would be for the applicant to contest the proceedings on merits taking all legal and factual grounds and in case, any orders are passed then the remedy under Section 25 of the Act or by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act can be invoked.
5. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the records, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention.
6. Apparently, a complaint stood filed by O.P. No.2, who happens to be the wife of the applicant no.1, marriage whereof was solemnized on 24.06.2019, against the applicants, husband as well as family members. This Court at this stage when only notices have been issued is not required to go into the merits of the charges, as they are the subject matter of proceedings. What would be relevant would be the fact as to whether the complainant, who has preferred the complaint answers the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act and she has been subjected to domestic violence under Section 2(f) and further applicants answer the description of respondents under Section 2(r) and there is a shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act.
7. Looking into the nature of the allegations contained therein, with regard to subjection of domestic violence and also demand of dowry, proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act stood initiated being FIR no.145 of 2022 and regarding subjection to domestic violence, the date has been shown to be 16.02.2022 at 10:30, wherein the applicants have been alleged to have inflicted injuries.
8. Thus, prima facie, it cannot be said that the complaint is frivolous as the merits are to be adjudged in the proceedings. As regards the submissions of the applicants that the issuance of notices is on printed proforma, this Court is of the opinion that there is a vast difference between summoning and issuance of notice. Further as regards the defect in the swearing clause is concerned, the same is subject matter which can be raised and appropriately dealt with the proceedings are allowed to continue as the same may be one of the defences. The extent of judicial intervention in the matters of the complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act, wherein no orders have been passed, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, wherein 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."
9. Cumulatively analyzing the case from the four-corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interference, accordingly, interference is declined. Application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the trial while taking all legal and factual grounds before the court below and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall consider the same in correct perspective. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)