Smt. Puja v. Jogendra Kumar

1. Heard Sri Parvat Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants, who are three in numbers, as well as Sri Bhuval Kumar Vishwakarma, learned AGA for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceedings and the summoning order dated

12.05.2022 and NBW dated 5.5.2025, issued/ passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ghaziabad, Complaint Case Number 5099 of 2022 (Smt. Puja Versus Jogendra Kumar @ Sumit Kumar and others), Under Sections 18, 19, 20 22 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005', (In short the D.V. Act) Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Ghaziabad.

3. The case of the applicants is that the applicants happened to be father- in-law, mother-in-law, and Jeth and the non-applicant husband, a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, came to be filed by the opposite party no.2 on 12.5.2022 with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 stood solemnized with Jogendra @ Sumit Kumar on 10.12.2020 and in the marriage expenditures worth Rs.10,00,000/- were incurred and Rs.2,00,000/- was given in cash along with motorcycle and other items, however, the applicants were adamant in their demand a four wheeler and Rs.6,00,000/- in cash and in this regard the opposite party no.2 was being subjected to domestic violence and on 2.3.2022 the 2 NA528 No. 32898 of 2025 opposite party no.2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house with the clothes which she was wearing and thereafter on 4.4.2022 the opposite party no.2 was granted excess in the house itself but on 10.5.2022 when she was in her house the applicants barged into the room and thereafter subjected her to domestic violence. Thereafter notices came to be issued followed by non-bailable warrant which came to be referred.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that though in the said proceedings an order came to be passed on 10.10.2023 under Section 23 of the D.V. Act in favour of the opposite party no.2 directing the husband Jogendra @ Sumit Kumar to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month but so far as the applicants are concerned they do not have any domestic relationship or shared household with the opposite party no.2. He has further submitted that they are separate living and they cannot be termed to be respondents under Section 2(r) of the D.V. Act

5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings.

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

7. Apparently, the opposite party no.2 wife alleges domestic violence against her husband and the applicants who is in laws, thus she answer the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act and once there happens to be an allegation of infliction of domestic violence by the applicant, then they come with the definition of the respondents as per Section 2(r) of the D.V. Act. The nature of the relationship is to be seen whether there is any domestic relationship under section 2(f) of the D.V.Act and there is a shared household under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act and the words employed under section 2(f) domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who lived together in the shared household and the word shared household, so defined, means the household where the person aggrieved has lived at any stage in the domestic relationship, itself, depicts that there happens to be, prima facie domestic relationships and shared household. Since this Court at this stage is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations as they are subject matter of the proceedings and on the face of the allegations it 3 NA528 No. 32898 of 2025 cannot be said that the allegations are frivolous as they are not liable to be proceeded with.

8. 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 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. 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 an exceptional case so as to warrant interference.

10. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicants 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. September 1, 2025 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) piyush 4 NA528 No. 32898 of 2025

1. Heard Sri Parvat Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants, who are three in numbers, as well as Sri Bhuval Kumar Vishwakarma, learned AGA for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceedings and the summoning order dated

12.05.2022 and NBW dated 5.5.2025, issued/ passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ghaziabad, Complaint Case Number 5099 of 2022 (Smt. Puja Versus Jogendra Kumar @ Sumit Kumar and others), Under Sections 18, 19, 20 22 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005', (In short the D.V. Act) Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Ghaziabad.

3. The case of the applicants is that the applicants happened to be father- in-law, mother-in-law, and Jeth and the non-applicant husband, a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, came to be filed by the opposite party no.2 on 12.5.2022 with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 stood solemnized with Jogendra @ Sumit Kumar on 10.12.2020 and in the marriage expenditures worth Rs.10,00,000/- were incurred and Rs.2,00,000/- was given in cash along with motorcycle and other items, however, the applicants were adamant in their demand a four wheeler and Rs.6,00,000/- in cash and in this regard the opposite party no.2 was being subjected to domestic violence and on 2.3.2022 the 2 NA528 No. 32898 of 2025 opposite party no.2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house with the clothes which she was wearing and thereafter on 4.4.2022 the opposite party no.2 was granted excess in the house itself but on 10.5.2022 when she was in her house the applicants barged into the room and thereafter subjected her to domestic violence. Thereafter notices came to be issued followed by non-bailable warrant which came to be referred.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that though in the said proceedings an order came to be passed on 10.10.2023 under Section 23 of the D.V. Act in favour of the opposite party no.2 directing the husband Jogendra @ Sumit Kumar to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month but so far as the applicants are concerned they do not have any domestic relationship or shared household with the opposite party no.2. He has further submitted that they are separate living and they cannot be termed to be respondents under Section 2(r) of the D.V. Act

5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings.

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

7. Apparently, the opposite party no.2 wife alleges domestic violence against her husband and the applicants who is in laws, thus she answer the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act and once there happens to be an allegation of infliction of domestic violence by the applicant, then they come with the definition of the respondents as per Section 2(r) of the D.V. Act. The nature of the relationship is to be seen whether there is any domestic relationship under section 2(f) of the D.V.Act and there is a shared household under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act and the words employed under section 2(f) domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who lived together in the shared household and the word shared household, so defined, means the household where the person aggrieved has lived at any stage in the domestic relationship, itself, depicts that there happens to be, prima facie domestic relationships and shared household. Since this Court at this stage is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations as they are subject matter of the proceedings and on the face of the allegations it 3 NA528 No. 32898 of 2025 cannot be said that the allegations are frivolous as they are not liable to be proceeded with.

8. 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 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. 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 an exceptional case so as to warrant interference.

10. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicants 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. September 1, 2025 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) piyush 4 NA528 No. 32898 of 2025