Harshita Chauhan v. Samdarsh Chauhan), under Section

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Tripathi learned AGA for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint No.152 of 2025 (Harshita Chauhan Vs. Samdarsh Chauhan), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, (In short D.V. Act), Police Station-28 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C.-2, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants happen to be the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, cousin father-in-law, cousin-mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 whose marriage stood solemnized with the applicant no.1 on 4.12.2022. He has further submitted that a complaint under Section 12 of the D. V. Act came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 on 19.3.2025, under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of the D.V. Act with an allegation that total expenditure of Rs.80 lakh was incurred and gifts were lakhs of rupees were offered to the applicants. Further allegation is that a demand of Rs.20 lakhs was made and on account of non-payment of the same, the opposite party no.2 was subjected to domestic violence and threatening was administered that in case the said demand is not fulfilled then the opposite party no.2 would be thrown out from her matrimonial house. It is alleged that on 4.10.2023 at about 5-6 when the applicant no.1 had gone to meet one of the women and then query was made then the opposite party no.2 was subjected to domestic violence, Marpeet and abuses were also hurled and by the applicants herein. Thereafter, the applicants suffered injuries C.T. Scan was done and she was put to medication. It is also alleged that it had become a matter of routine that abuses were being hurled and the opposite party no.2 was humiliated at the end of the applicants. It is also alleged that the opposite party no.2 was thrown out of the matrimonial house and she is living since 11.1.2024 in her matrimonial house and on 22.1.2024 the opposite party no.2 gained knowledge that the second marriage of the applicant no.1 is being fixed. Post lodging of the complaint the notices came to be issued on 19.3.2025.

4. Questioning the complaint as well as the issuance of the notice, the applicants have filed the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations contained in the complaint are nothing but bundle of lies just in order to entangle and rope in the applicants particularly when the entire allegations have been levelled just in order to harass the applicants in all possible manner. He further submits that there is nothing on record to demonstrate except bald allegations that demand of Rs.20/- lakhs has been raised and further the applicants had no point of time extended injury to the opposite party no.2 and at no point of time thrown out of the matrimonial house on 11.1.2024.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that till date no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued thus, it is for the applicants to contest the trial and in case any orders have been passed then they are subject to remedies which are available under the statute.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. Apparently, at the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and the issuance of the notice. Since there is no orders passed thus this Court at this stage is only required to have a prima facie opinion whether the case is liable to be proceeded with or not. In order to determine the said aspect on prima facie basis what would be relevant would been fact as to whether the opposite party no.2 answers the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act and since the opposite party no.2 claims to be wife and the other applicants are in-laws and allegation is regarding subjection to domestic violence at the end of the applicants thus she answers the description of the aggrieved woman under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act. Next, in so far as domestic violence is concerned, the same depends upon the relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time live together in shade house also.

8. Though the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants is that barring the husband applicant no.1 rest of the applicants no. 2 to 6 do not have any domestic relationship and further and there is no shared house hold under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act but there are no convincing material on record to substantiate the same, thus, the same becomes an issue of adjudication and at this stage when no orders have been passed only complaint has been challenged, this Court is not required to delve into the same matter while recording a definite -finding in that regard.

9. As regards Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act is concerned the same is with respect to the definition of respondent. Apparently, allegations have been made against the applicants, might be they are true or false which are subject matter of proceedings thus, on the face of the said allegations (without going into the merits of the same) the applicants herein answers the description of respondents. Even otherwise whatever allegations are there they are to be adjudged and thrashed out in the proceedings. Moreover, there is no order passed under Chapter IV and only notices have been issued along with the complaint thus, once an order is passed then it shall be amenable to challenge by way of appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act or by way of application under Section 25 of the D.V. Act.

10. 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."

11. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 piyush

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Tripathi learned AGA for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint No.152 of 2025 (Harshita Chauhan Vs. Samdarsh Chauhan), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, (In short D.V. Act), Police Station-28 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C.-2, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants happen to be the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, cousin father-in-law, cousin-mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 whose marriage stood solemnized with the applicant no.1 on 4.12.2022. He has further submitted that a complaint under Section 12 of the D. V. Act came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 on 19.3.2025, under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of the D.V. Act with an allegation that total expenditure of Rs.80 lakh was incurred and gifts were lakhs of rupees were offered to the applicants. Further allegation is that a demand of Rs.20 lakhs was made and on account of non-payment of the same, the opposite party no.2 was subjected to domestic violence and threatening was administered that in case the said demand is not fulfilled then the opposite party no.2 would be thrown out from her matrimonial house. It is alleged that on 4.10.2023 at about 5-6 when the applicant no.1 had gone to meet one of the women and then query was made then the opposite party no.2 was subjected to domestic violence, Marpeet and abuses were also hurled and by the applicants herein. Thereafter, the applicants suffered injuries C.T. Scan was done and she was put to medication. It is also alleged that it had become a matter of routine that abuses were being hurled and the opposite party no.2 was humiliated at the end of the applicants. It is also alleged that the opposite party no.2 was thrown out of the matrimonial house and she is living since 11.1.2024 in her matrimonial house and on 22.1.2024 the opposite party no.2 gained knowledge that the second marriage of the applicant no.1 is being fixed. Post lodging of the complaint the notices came to be issued on 19.3.2025.

4. Questioning the complaint as well as the issuance of the notice, the applicants have filed the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations contained in the complaint are nothing but bundle of lies just in order to entangle and rope in the applicants particularly when the entire allegations have been levelled just in order to harass the applicants in all possible manner. He further submits that there is nothing on record to demonstrate except bald allegations that demand of Rs.20/- lakhs has been raised and further the applicants had no point of time extended injury to the opposite party no.2 and at no point of time thrown out of the matrimonial house on 11.1.2024.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that till date no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued thus, it is for the applicants to contest the trial and in case any orders have been passed then they are subject to remedies which are available under the statute.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. Apparently, at the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and the issuance of the notice. Since there is no orders passed thus this Court at this stage is only required to have a prima facie opinion whether the case is liable to be proceeded with or not. In order to determine the said aspect on prima facie basis what would be relevant would been fact as to whether the opposite party no.2 answers the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act and since the opposite party no.2 claims to be wife and the other applicants are in-laws and allegation is regarding subjection to domestic violence at the end of the applicants thus she answers the description of the aggrieved woman under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act. Next, in so far as domestic violence is concerned, the same depends upon the relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time live together in shade house also.

8. Though the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants is that barring the husband applicant no.1 rest of the applicants no. 2 to 6 do not have any domestic relationship and further and there is no shared house hold under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act but there are no convincing material on record to substantiate the same, thus, the same becomes an issue of adjudication and at this stage when no orders have been passed only complaint has been challenged, this Court is not required to delve into the same matter while recording a definite -finding in that regard.

9. As regards Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act is concerned the same is with respect to the definition of respondent. Apparently, allegations have been made against the applicants, might be they are true or false which are subject matter of proceedings thus, on the face of the said allegations (without going into the merits of the same) the applicants herein answers the description of respondents. Even otherwise whatever allegations are there they are to be adjudged and thrashed out in the proceedings. Moreover, there is no order passed under Chapter IV and only notices have been issued along with the complaint thus, once an order is passed then it shall be amenable to challenge by way of appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act or by way of application under Section 25 of the D.V. Act.

10. 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."

11. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 piyush