Syed Haider Ali Jafri v. Mohd. Sageer, pursuant whereto summoning order was

1. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Nawav, learned counsel for the applicants, who are 6 in number as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 16.04.2025, emanating from Complaint Case No. 150 of 2025, under sections 12,18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. PS-Kila, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Court No.3, District Bareilly.

3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2, who happens to be the wife of applicant no.6 as well as against the mother- in-law, Nanad and devar with an allegation that the marriage stood solemnized on 23.11.2019. Allegation is that though at the time of marriage, several gifts worth lacs of rupees were offered, but the applicants were not happy with the same and their demand was for much more, as they kept on demanding additional gifts in the shape of a four-wheeler also. It is also contended that the O.P. no.2 was subjected to domestic violence by the applicants and on 12.08.2023, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house. Thereafter on 16.04.2025, the notices came to be issued to the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the impugned complaint is nothing but a counterblast, as the applicant faction has already lodged proceedings in Complaint Case No.25543 of 2023, Syed Haider Ali Jafri Vs. Mohd. Sageer, pursuant whereto summoning order was 2 NA528 No. 33947 of 2025 passed under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and as a matter of counterblast and retaliation the present proceeding has been lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that there has been violation of the provisions contained under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS, as the applicant has not been put to notice at a pre-cognizance stage.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that first of all, the present proceeding emanates from a complaint under Domestic Violence Act, which is a separate proceeding vis-a-vis CrPC and BNSS is concerned, and according to him, no order has been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and in case, any orders are passed, they are the subject matter of Appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by way of proceeding, under Section 25 of the Act.

5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

6. Apparently, the O.P. No.2 alleges to be the wife of applicant no.6 and the allegation is regarding subjection to domestic violence at the instance of the applicants with regard to non-offering of the gifts, as the gifts which were offered at the time of the marriage were not as per the expectation of the applicant. As a matter of fact, when a challenge has been raised to the competence of the complaint, then what would be required is to prima facie evaluate whether the case is liable to be proceeded or not and the Court is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations, as a matter of fact, the O.P. No.2 claims herself to be the wife of applicant no.6 and the applicants being inlaws and the husband, thus she comes within the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a), and since domestic violence has been alleged against the applicants, they come within the definition of Respondents under Section 2(r). What would be relevant is the fact whether there is any domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and a shared household under Section 2(s). Primarily, domestic relationship means relationship between two persons, who live or have any point of time lived together in a shared household and share household means a household that the aggrieved person lives or at any stage has lived in domestic relationship along with the respondents. Since the allegation is that the O.P. no.2 is the wife of applicant no.6 and the 3 NA528 No. 33947 of 2025 applicants are the inlaws and she has been subjected to domestic violence and she had also been thrown out from the matrimonial house and she had been maltreated and harassed. Thus prima facie it cannot be said that the case is not liable to be proceeded. The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of judicial intervention in the matters of complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a note of caution was also flagged that in a routine manner in rarest of rare case, when there are glaring infirmities, then only the Court should interfere. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, 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 4 NA528 No. 33947 of 2025 of gross illegality or injustice."

7. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act, and further the allegation of the applicant is that the present case is nothing but a counterblast in retaliation which is an issue which is to be taken up in the proceedings, once it is raised, thus interference is declined. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that Section 223 of BNSS is applicable, in the opinion of the Court, the same is not applicable in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

8. The 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. September 8, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Nawav, learned counsel for the applicants, who are 6 in number as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 16.04.2025, emanating from Complaint Case No. 150 of 2025, under sections 12,18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. PS-Kila, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Court No.3, District Bareilly.

3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2, who happens to be the wife of applicant no.6 as well as against the mother- in-law, Nanad and devar with an allegation that the marriage stood solemnized on 23.11.2019. Allegation is that though at the time of marriage, several gifts worth lacs of rupees were offered, but the applicants were not happy with the same and their demand was for much more, as they kept on demanding additional gifts in the shape of a four-wheeler also. It is also contended that the O.P. no.2 was subjected to domestic violence by the applicants and on 12.08.2023, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house. Thereafter on 16.04.2025, the notices came to be issued to the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the impugned complaint is nothing but a counterblast, as the applicant faction has already lodged proceedings in Complaint Case No.25543 of 2023, Syed Haider Ali Jafri Vs. Mohd. Sageer, pursuant whereto summoning order was 2 NA528 No. 33947 of 2025 passed under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and as a matter of counterblast and retaliation the present proceeding has been lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that there has been violation of the provisions contained under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS, as the applicant has not been put to notice at a pre-cognizance stage.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that first of all, the present proceeding emanates from a complaint under Domestic Violence Act, which is a separate proceeding vis-a-vis CrPC and BNSS is concerned, and according to him, no order has been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and in case, any orders are passed, they are the subject matter of Appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by way of proceeding, under Section 25 of the Act.

5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

6. Apparently, the O.P. No.2 alleges to be the wife of applicant no.6 and the allegation is regarding subjection to domestic violence at the instance of the applicants with regard to non-offering of the gifts, as the gifts which were offered at the time of the marriage were not as per the expectation of the applicant. As a matter of fact, when a challenge has been raised to the competence of the complaint, then what would be required is to prima facie evaluate whether the case is liable to be proceeded or not and the Court is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations, as a matter of fact, the O.P. No.2 claims herself to be the wife of applicant no.6 and the applicants being inlaws and the husband, thus she comes within the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a), and since domestic violence has been alleged against the applicants, they come within the definition of Respondents under Section 2(r). What would be relevant is the fact whether there is any domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and a shared household under Section 2(s). Primarily, domestic relationship means relationship between two persons, who live or have any point of time lived together in a shared household and share household means a household that the aggrieved person lives or at any stage has lived in domestic relationship along with the respondents. Since the allegation is that the O.P. no.2 is the wife of applicant no.6 and the 3 NA528 No. 33947 of 2025 applicants are the inlaws and she has been subjected to domestic violence and she had also been thrown out from the matrimonial house and she had been maltreated and harassed. Thus prima facie it cannot be said that the case is not liable to be proceeded. The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of judicial intervention in the matters of complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a note of caution was also flagged that in a routine manner in rarest of rare case, when there are glaring infirmities, then only the Court should interfere. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, 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 4 NA528 No. 33947 of 2025 of gross illegality or injustice."

7. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act, and further the allegation of the applicant is that the present case is nothing but a counterblast in retaliation which is an issue which is to be taken up in the proceedings, once it is raised, thus interference is declined. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that Section 223 of BNSS is applicable, in the opinion of the Court, the same is not applicable in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

8. The 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. September 8, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.)