Smt. Preeti Koshta v. Rupesh Koshta & others), pending in the Court of Civil Judge

1. Heard Sri Ruchita Jain, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.841/2024 (Smt. Preeti Koshta vs. Rupesh Koshta & others), pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (C.A.W.)/Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Mahila Thana Nawabad, District Jhansi.

3. The case of the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be the daughter-in-law whose marriage stood solemnized with Rupesh Koshta who happens to be the son of applicants no. 1 and 2 on

11.03.2023. A complaint was lodged under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the D.V. Act against the applicants with an allegation that though in the marriage, huge expenditure were incurred but the applicants were not happy with the gifts so offered as their demand was of a motorcycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash pursuant whereto the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to atrocities, maltreatment and assault and abuses were also hurled and thrown out from the matrimonial house on 09.02.2024 and she is living in her maternal house.

4. Questioning the complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, & 22 of the DV Act, 2005 and issuance of notice, the present application has 2 NA528 No. 32572 of 2025 been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the contained itself is not maintainable and it contains bundle of lies, there is no element or iota of evidence that the applicants have subjected the opposite party no. 2 to any domestic violence. Submission is that the opposite party no. 2 was at no point of time thrown out from materimonal house on

09.02.2024 and there has been no demand of additional gifts which became the basis for domestic violence.

6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that no order whatsoever has been passed under Chapter IV of Domestic Violence, 2005 only complaint has been challenged, thus, it is for the applicants to contest the complaint on merits.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Apparently, at the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the maintainability of the complaint as well as issuance of notice. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the DV Act, thus, it would not be appropriate for the Court to adjudge the merits of the allegations. What would be required is the fact whether the proceedings are liable to be conducted on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint. As a matter of fact, the complaint alleges that the opposite party no. 2 being the wife and daughter-in-law had been subjected to domestic violence because the parents of the opposite party no. 2 could not satisfy the demands with regard to the gifts which they had sought which resulted to the fact that on 09.02.2024, the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house. Importantly, opposite party no. 2, prima facie, comes within the definition of an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) as she alleges that domestic violence has been committed and the allegations is against the applicants who are respondents within the definition of Section 2(r). Insofar as the domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act is concerned, what would be relevant is the fact that the aggrieved person had at any point of time had lived with the respondents against whom 3 NA528 No. 32572 of 2025 domestic violence has been committed. In the present case, though as per the applicants, the applicants are having separate living but that needs to be substantiated by leading evidence and the words employed under Section 2(f) and Section 2(s) means when the person aggrieved lives or at any stage have lived in domestic relationship or in shared household, thus, what would be relevant is at any point of time, there have been domestic relationship or shared household and it is not a hard and fast rule that on the date when the complaint has been lodged there must be shared household or domestic relationship. Even otherwise the allegations regarding domestic violence needs to be adjudicated in proceedings and it would not be appropriate for this Court to scuttle the said proceedings.

9. The extent of judicial intervention in the matter of complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C./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 challenge to the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, wherein para 35 and 39 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 4 NA528 No. 32572 of 2025 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. Bearing in mind that no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and in case any orders are passed they are amenable to challenge under Section 29 of the Act by way of appeal or preferring appropriate application under Section 25 of the Act. Looking into the nature of the allegations this Court does not find the present case as a fit case for interference so as to scuttle the proceedings at this stage.

11. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicants to take all legal and factual pleas while contesting the trial and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. September 9, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Ruchita Jain, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.841/2024 (Smt. Preeti Koshta vs. Rupesh Koshta & others), pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (C.A.W.)/Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Mahila Thana Nawabad, District Jhansi.

3. The case of the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be the daughter-in-law whose marriage stood solemnized with Rupesh Koshta who happens to be the son of applicants no. 1 and 2 on

11.03.2023. A complaint was lodged under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the D.V. Act against the applicants with an allegation that though in the marriage, huge expenditure were incurred but the applicants were not happy with the gifts so offered as their demand was of a motorcycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash pursuant whereto the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to atrocities, maltreatment and assault and abuses were also hurled and thrown out from the matrimonial house on 09.02.2024 and she is living in her maternal house.

4. Questioning the complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, & 22 of the DV Act, 2005 and issuance of notice, the present application has 2 NA528 No. 32572 of 2025 been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the contained itself is not maintainable and it contains bundle of lies, there is no element or iota of evidence that the applicants have subjected the opposite party no. 2 to any domestic violence. Submission is that the opposite party no. 2 was at no point of time thrown out from materimonal house on

09.02.2024 and there has been no demand of additional gifts which became the basis for domestic violence.

6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that no order whatsoever has been passed under Chapter IV of Domestic Violence, 2005 only complaint has been challenged, thus, it is for the applicants to contest the complaint on merits.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Apparently, at the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the maintainability of the complaint as well as issuance of notice. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the DV Act, thus, it would not be appropriate for the Court to adjudge the merits of the allegations. What would be required is the fact whether the proceedings are liable to be conducted on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint. As a matter of fact, the complaint alleges that the opposite party no. 2 being the wife and daughter-in-law had been subjected to domestic violence because the parents of the opposite party no. 2 could not satisfy the demands with regard to the gifts which they had sought which resulted to the fact that on 09.02.2024, the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house. Importantly, opposite party no. 2, prima facie, comes within the definition of an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) as she alleges that domestic violence has been committed and the allegations is against the applicants who are respondents within the definition of Section 2(r). Insofar as the domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act is concerned, what would be relevant is the fact that the aggrieved person had at any point of time had lived with the respondents against whom 3 NA528 No. 32572 of 2025 domestic violence has been committed. In the present case, though as per the applicants, the applicants are having separate living but that needs to be substantiated by leading evidence and the words employed under Section 2(f) and Section 2(s) means when the person aggrieved lives or at any stage have lived in domestic relationship or in shared household, thus, what would be relevant is at any point of time, there have been domestic relationship or shared household and it is not a hard and fast rule that on the date when the complaint has been lodged there must be shared household or domestic relationship. Even otherwise the allegations regarding domestic violence needs to be adjudicated in proceedings and it would not be appropriate for this Court to scuttle the said proceedings.

9. The extent of judicial intervention in the matter of complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C./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 challenge to the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, wherein para 35 and 39 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 4 NA528 No. 32572 of 2025 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. Bearing in mind that no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and in case any orders are passed they are amenable to challenge under Section 29 of the Act by way of appeal or preferring appropriate application under Section 25 of the Act. Looking into the nature of the allegations this Court does not find the present case as a fit case for interference so as to scuttle the proceedings at this stage.

11. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicants to take all legal and factual pleas while contesting the trial and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. September 9, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)