Smt. Afsana v. Javed and others under Section Under Section

1. Heard Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing entire proceedings in Case No. 6254 of 2022, inre: Smt. Afsana Vs. Javed and others under Section Under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Lisadi Gate, District Meerut, pending in the Court A.C.J.M.- VIII, Meerut.

3. The case of the applicant is that the applicants are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Marriage of applicant no.1 stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 16.03.2020. However, a complaint came to be lodged in the month of May, 2022 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the allegations that at the time of marriage, on 16.03.2020, huge expenditure was sought to be made and gifts were offered, however, they were not satisfied with O.P. No.2. The stridhan as well as the valuables which the O.P. No.2 possessed was taken in custody by the applicants with the assurance that they will be returned when they are prone to be misused, however, they were not returned and a demand of Rs.20,00,000/- and a Fortuner Car was being made and since the demand was exorbitant, and the same could not be fulfilled for some reasons, thus the O.P. No.2 was subjected to assault and maltreatment. Though a daughter was born with the wedlock of applicant no.1 and O.P. No.2, but the entire expenditure of delivery was incurred by in-laws of O.P. No.2. The complaint also alleges that the O.P. No.2 was subjected to domestic violence and the applicant no.4 who happens to be the brother-in-law had a bad eye upon O.P. No.2. Further proceedings being Case Crime No.338 of 2021, under Sections 376, 307, 354, 323 IPC had been lodged, in which applicants had been enlarged on bail. Against the applicants, only notices were issued on 19.05.2022.

4. Questioning the maintainability of the complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and the issuance of notices, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that totally false and frivolous allegations have been leveled in the complaint, which have got no basis. He further submits that at no point of time, any demand of dowry was being raised and further though the O.P. No.2 alleges that she has been subjected to domestic violence, but there is nothing on record even to show the instance and the date, on which the O.P. No.2 was subjected to domestic violence. Submission is that criminal proceedings were also lodged against the husband and the entire family members and just in order to dictate terms, pressure tactics have been sought to be adopted.

6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that no order under Chapter IV of the Act has been passed and only notices have been issued that too in the year 2022 and the order-sheet, which is annexed as Annexure-4 at page 50 of the paper-book, shows that the applicants have not put their appearance before the court below and the service of notice was deemed to be sufficient upon applicants 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.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

8. Apparently, the complaint came to be lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Importantly, no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices which have been issued are subject matter of challenge. This Court is not required to delve into merits of the case, as they are subject matter of proceedings. The question which would have weight would be the fact as to whether the complaint is frivolous or not so as to thoroughly overrule the continuance of the proceedings. In order to determine the said fact on a prima facie basis, what would be relevant would be the relationship of the parties and the prima facie bare look of the allegations. Apparently, the O.P. No.2 is the wife of the applicant no.1 and rest of the applicants are inlaws. Thus the O.P. No.2 answers the description of Section 2(a), aggrieved person means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondents, who are applicants herein, and who had subjected the aggrieved person to any act of domestic violence. As regards domestic relationship is concerned, same is defined under Section 2(f), which means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage and so far as Section 2(s) is concerned, the same deals with share household, which means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent, and of course once the allegations are there against the applicants regarding subjection to domestic violence, then they answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(q).

9. Looking into the nature of allegations, prima facie, it cannot be out-rightly overruled that the said sections are not applicable, particularly when the allegations are of subjection to domestic violence on account of non-satisfaction of the demand of dowry. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act, and the applicants themselves have not put in their appearance, thus it is for the applicant to contest the trial and take all the grounds which are legally permissible and advisable, they will contest the proceedings and also enter into a settlement as the avenues are always open. In case any orders are passed under Chapter IV of the Act, then they had remedy by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act and the proceedings under Section 25 of the Act. 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 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. 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 :- 4.8.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)

1. Heard Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing entire proceedings in Case No. 6254 of 2022, inre: Smt. Afsana Vs. Javed and others under Section Under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Lisadi Gate, District Meerut, pending in the Court A.C.J.M.- VIII, Meerut.

3. The case of the applicant is that the applicants are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Marriage of applicant no.1 stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 16.03.2020. However, a complaint came to be lodged in the month of May, 2022 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the allegations that at the time of marriage, on 16.03.2020, huge expenditure was sought to be made and gifts were offered, however, they were not satisfied with O.P. No.2. The stridhan as well as the valuables which the O.P. No.2 possessed was taken in custody by the applicants with the assurance that they will be returned when they are prone to be misused, however, they were not returned and a demand of Rs.20,00,000/- and a Fortuner Car was being made and since the demand was exorbitant, and the same could not be fulfilled for some reasons, thus the O.P. No.2 was subjected to assault and maltreatment. Though a daughter was born with the wedlock of applicant no.1 and O.P. No.2, but the entire expenditure of delivery was incurred by in-laws of O.P. No.2. The complaint also alleges that the O.P. No.2 was subjected to domestic violence and the applicant no.4 who happens to be the brother-in-law had a bad eye upon O.P. No.2. Further proceedings being Case Crime No.338 of 2021, under Sections 376, 307, 354, 323 IPC had been lodged, in which applicants had been enlarged on bail. Against the applicants, only notices were issued on 19.05.2022.

4. Questioning the maintainability of the complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and the issuance of notices, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that totally false and frivolous allegations have been leveled in the complaint, which have got no basis. He further submits that at no point of time, any demand of dowry was being raised and further though the O.P. No.2 alleges that she has been subjected to domestic violence, but there is nothing on record even to show the instance and the date, on which the O.P. No.2 was subjected to domestic violence. Submission is that criminal proceedings were also lodged against the husband and the entire family members and just in order to dictate terms, pressure tactics have been sought to be adopted.

6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that no order under Chapter IV of the Act has been passed and only notices have been issued that too in the year 2022 and the order-sheet, which is annexed as Annexure-4 at page 50 of the paper-book, shows that the applicants have not put their appearance before the court below and the service of notice was deemed to be sufficient upon applicants 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.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

8. Apparently, the complaint came to be lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Importantly, no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices which have been issued are subject matter of challenge. This Court is not required to delve into merits of the case, as they are subject matter of proceedings. The question which would have weight would be the fact as to whether the complaint is frivolous or not so as to thoroughly overrule the continuance of the proceedings. In order to determine the said fact on a prima facie basis, what would be relevant would be the relationship of the parties and the prima facie bare look of the allegations. Apparently, the O.P. No.2 is the wife of the applicant no.1 and rest of the applicants are inlaws. Thus the O.P. No.2 answers the description of Section 2(a), aggrieved person means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondents, who are applicants herein, and who had subjected the aggrieved person to any act of domestic violence. As regards domestic relationship is concerned, same is defined under Section 2(f), which means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage and so far as Section 2(s) is concerned, the same deals with share household, which means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent, and of course once the allegations are there against the applicants regarding subjection to domestic violence, then they answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(q).

9. Looking into the nature of allegations, prima facie, it cannot be out-rightly overruled that the said sections are not applicable, particularly when the allegations are of subjection to domestic violence on account of non-satisfaction of the demand of dowry. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act, and the applicants themselves have not put in their appearance, thus it is for the applicant to contest the trial and take all the grounds which are legally permissible and advisable, they will contest the proceedings and also enter into a settlement as the avenues are always open. In case any orders are passed under Chapter IV of the Act, then they had remedy by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act and the proceedings under Section 25 of the Act. 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 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. 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 :- 4.8.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)