Others v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra along with Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State/opposite party no.1.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash/set aside the impugned summoning order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Court No. 1 Agra in Criminal Misc. Case no.2536 of 2025 (Shweta Singh and another Vs. Vivek Kumar Singh and others) under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005.

3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act came to be preferred by the opposite party no. 2 on 05/03/2025 against applicants who are husband, father-in-law and mother- in-law with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on 04.03.2019 and in the marriage, huge expenditure to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- were incurred and gold items as well as others items, four Wheeler and other gifts were offered , however, the applicants were not happy with the gifts so offered as their demand much more being Rs. 10,00,000/- cash and in that regard on 07/08.01.2020, the applicants are stated to have assaulted and beaten the opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 had to run from her matrimonial house and thereafter on 17.04.2020, the settlement was made and thereafter on 17.04.2020, a baby was born. It is also alleged that on 28.06.2020 when the parents of the opposite party no. 2 had gone to the matrimonial house of the opposite party no. 2 then the applicants herein created raucous and thrown out the opposite party no. 2. It is also alleged that on various dates, telephonic calls were made and request was made that the opposite party no. 2 be granted access to her matrimonial house but the same was not done and thereafter an agreement took place on 04.07.2021 and the opposite party no. 2 went with her matrimonial house, however, constant threats were being 2 NA528 No. 29282 of 2025 administered and that the opposite party no. 2 will be entangled in some criminal case and further each and every attempt was being made somehow to harm off-springs of the opposite party no. 2. It is also alleged that on 28.02.2023/ 01.03.2023 against the opposite party no. 2 was beaten and since she is living all alone with her parents in her maternal house. Post lodging of a complaint on 05.03.2020, notices were issued.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable, particularly, it is nothing but grossest misuse of process of law. Submission is that the applicants are facing criminal cases pursuant to lodging of a first information report bearing No. 0121 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act in which chargesheet has been submitted and further proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also drawn, pursuant whereto the applicants are also paying the maintenance and further proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was also lodged followed by proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Submission is that on the basis of the totally false and frivolous allegation, the applicants are being sought to be harassed at all possible point of time and further the opposite party no. 2 is taking recourse to various proceedings under different enactments while creating all sorts of harassment to the applicants.

5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and only notices have been issued and it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings and once an order is passed then it is amenable to challenge under Section 25 or by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

7. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. In the present case, challenge has been raised to the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 as well as the order issuing notices. As a matter of fact, the applicants allege herself to be wife of the applicant no. 1 and daughter-in-law of the applicant nos. 2 and 3. Opposite party no. 2 alleges that she has been subjected to domestic violence, thus, she prima facie comes within the definition of an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and further allegation is against the applicants with regard to subjecting her to domestic violence thus they come within the respondents under Section 2(r). The next question which would arise is whether there is any shared household under section 2(s) of the Act or domestic relationship under section 2(f) of the Act. For the said purpose, what would be relevant, would be the relationship of the parties in that regard and the allegation contend therein. The words employed under Section 2(f) which defines domestic relationship means relationship between two persons who live or 3 NA528 No. 29282 of 2025 have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household and further so far as Section 2(s) is concerned, the same defines a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship meaning thereby it is not a hard and fast rule that only the complaint would be maintainable once the shared household or the domestic violence was done on a date of filing of the complaint as the words employed "at any point of time" marks significance. The allegations in the complaint is related to domestic violence with regard to the non-fulfillment of the demand raised by the applicants to the opposite party no. 2 and subjection to domestic violence. The Domestic Violence Act stands defined in Section 3 of the Act. So far as the contention so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that there are multiple proceedings have been lodged under different enactments before separate forums and, thus, it is nothing but the grossest misuse or process of law is at best of matter of defence which can be considered at a stage when the proceedings are allowed to continue, it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking specific grounds regarding harassment and malicious prosecution.

8. So far as the contention so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that already the applicants are paying maintenance under the provisions contained under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. thus, the proceedings would not be maintainable the same is not convincible, particularly, in view of the provisions contained under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations as they are the subject matter of proceedings. The opposite party no. 2/ wife is alleging that the applicants have committed domestic violence. The question as to whether there is any merit in the allegation is not a question which is to be seen at this stage. The allegations and the counter allegations between the parties are to be thrashed out once the proceedings commences. The extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. in the matter of the challenge raised to the complaint under Domestic Violence Act came up for consideration in Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saurav Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, the following was observed: "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 4 NA528 No. 29282 of 2025 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. As only notices have been issued and no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and the nature of the allegations do not depict that the allegations prima facie are frivolous thus looking into the fact, in case orders are passed which according to the learned counsel for the applicants are prejudicial to the interest then they can be challenged by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

10. This Court does not find the present case as an exceptional warranting interference, accordingly, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of.

11. Leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings on merit taking all legal and factual grounds while contesting the application and, in case, such grounds are taken then this court has no reason to disbelieve then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. September 11, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra along with Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State/opposite party no.1.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash/set aside the impugned summoning order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court, Court No. 1 Agra in Criminal Misc. Case no.2536 of 2025 (Shweta Singh and another Vs. Vivek Kumar Singh and others) under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005.

3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act came to be preferred by the opposite party no. 2 on 05/03/2025 against applicants who are husband, father-in-law and mother- in-law with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on 04.03.2019 and in the marriage, huge expenditure to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- were incurred and gold items as well as others items, four Wheeler and other gifts were offered , however, the applicants were not happy with the gifts so offered as their demand much more being Rs. 10,00,000/- cash and in that regard on 07/08.01.2020, the applicants are stated to have assaulted and beaten the opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 had to run from her matrimonial house and thereafter on 17.04.2020, the settlement was made and thereafter on 17.04.2020, a baby was born. It is also alleged that on 28.06.2020 when the parents of the opposite party no. 2 had gone to the matrimonial house of the opposite party no. 2 then the applicants herein created raucous and thrown out the opposite party no. 2. It is also alleged that on various dates, telephonic calls were made and request was made that the opposite party no. 2 be granted access to her matrimonial house but the same was not done and thereafter an agreement took place on 04.07.2021 and the opposite party no. 2 went with her matrimonial house, however, constant threats were being 2 NA528 No. 29282 of 2025 administered and that the opposite party no. 2 will be entangled in some criminal case and further each and every attempt was being made somehow to harm off-springs of the opposite party no. 2. It is also alleged that on 28.02.2023/ 01.03.2023 against the opposite party no. 2 was beaten and since she is living all alone with her parents in her maternal house. Post lodging of a complaint on 05.03.2020, notices were issued.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable, particularly, it is nothing but grossest misuse of process of law. Submission is that the applicants are facing criminal cases pursuant to lodging of a first information report bearing No. 0121 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act in which chargesheet has been submitted and further proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also drawn, pursuant whereto the applicants are also paying the maintenance and further proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was also lodged followed by proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Submission is that on the basis of the totally false and frivolous allegation, the applicants are being sought to be harassed at all possible point of time and further the opposite party no. 2 is taking recourse to various proceedings under different enactments while creating all sorts of harassment to the applicants.

5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and only notices have been issued and it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings and once an order is passed then it is amenable to challenge under Section 25 or by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

7. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. In the present case, challenge has been raised to the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 as well as the order issuing notices. As a matter of fact, the applicants allege herself to be wife of the applicant no. 1 and daughter-in-law of the applicant nos. 2 and 3. Opposite party no. 2 alleges that she has been subjected to domestic violence, thus, she prima facie comes within the definition of an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and further allegation is against the applicants with regard to subjecting her to domestic violence thus they come within the respondents under Section 2(r). The next question which would arise is whether there is any shared household under section 2(s) of the Act or domestic relationship under section 2(f) of the Act. For the said purpose, what would be relevant, would be the relationship of the parties in that regard and the allegation contend therein. The words employed under Section 2(f) which defines domestic relationship means relationship between two persons who live or 3 NA528 No. 29282 of 2025 have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household and further so far as Section 2(s) is concerned, the same defines a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship meaning thereby it is not a hard and fast rule that only the complaint would be maintainable once the shared household or the domestic violence was done on a date of filing of the complaint as the words employed "at any point of time" marks significance. The allegations in the complaint is related to domestic violence with regard to the non-fulfillment of the demand raised by the applicants to the opposite party no. 2 and subjection to domestic violence. The Domestic Violence Act stands defined in Section 3 of the Act. So far as the contention so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that there are multiple proceedings have been lodged under different enactments before separate forums and, thus, it is nothing but the grossest misuse or process of law is at best of matter of defence which can be considered at a stage when the proceedings are allowed to continue, it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking specific grounds regarding harassment and malicious prosecution.

8. So far as the contention so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that already the applicants are paying maintenance under the provisions contained under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. thus, the proceedings would not be maintainable the same is not convincible, particularly, in view of the provisions contained under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations as they are the subject matter of proceedings. The opposite party no. 2/ wife is alleging that the applicants have committed domestic violence. The question as to whether there is any merit in the allegation is not a question which is to be seen at this stage. The allegations and the counter allegations between the parties are to be thrashed out once the proceedings commences. The extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. in the matter of the challenge raised to the complaint under Domestic Violence Act came up for consideration in Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saurav Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, the following was observed: "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 4 NA528 No. 29282 of 2025 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. As only notices have been issued and no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and the nature of the allegations do not depict that the allegations prima facie are frivolous thus looking into the fact, in case orders are passed which according to the learned counsel for the applicants are prejudicial to the interest then they can be challenged by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

10. This Court does not find the present case as an exceptional warranting interference, accordingly, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of.

11. Leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings on merit taking all legal and factual grounds while contesting the application and, in case, such grounds are taken then this court has no reason to disbelieve then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. September 11, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.)