Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi along with Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the complaint dated 28.04.2023, summoning order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi, as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1330 of 2023 (Dr. Sharda Kusum Vs. Chandan Mishra and others), for the offence under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, Police Station Kotwali Varanasi, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi.

3. The case of the applicant is that on 28.04.2023, a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant on 05.06.2015 and at the time of marriage, huge expenditure were incurred and various precious gifts were offered. Allegation is that post lapsing of six months of marriage, it was discovered that the marriage of the applicant had already been solemnized with one Kamna Pandey eight years ago and the said fact was not disclosed and the opposite party no. 2 was kept in dark jeopardizing her matrimonial relationship. Though the opposite party no. 2 used to discharge her duties as a wife, however, demand of dowry was also being made and on account of non-payment, she was subjected to 2 NA528 No. 35252 of 2025 domestic violence. It is also contended that the aforesaid act and omission of the applicant jeopardized her interest and she was broken from inside on 14.03.2022 a first information report also stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Sections 494, 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act being FIR No. 022 of 2022. Post lodging of the complaint, notices came to be issued and the applicant entered appearance and file its reply/objection on 11.02.2025, a copy whereof is at Annexure-4 at page 53 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act itself is not maintainable for the simple reason that it contains false and incorrect allegations. The opposite party no. 2 was at no point of time subjected to domestic violence only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled without there being any specific allegations. He further submits that the applicant is also contesting the proceedings in first information report No. 022 of 2022 under Sections 494, 498A IPC and 3/4 of the DP Act and further the proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and HMA No. 2141 came to be decided in favour of the applicant on 20.09.2024 and insofar as the first information report is concerned, the applicant has already obtained interim protection in Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 31017 of 2025 on 28.08.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no domestic relationship of under Section 2(f) or shared household under Section 2(s) and the applicant do not answer the description of respondents under Section 2(r) of the Act.

4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that this Court may not interfere at this stage particularly when post issuance of the notices, the applicant himself has entered his appearance and file his objection raising all the grounds which has been sought to be raised herein and according to him, it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings and, in case, any orders have passed which are against the applicant then they are amenable to challenge by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by way of proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

5. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 3 NA528 No. 35252 of 2025

6. Apparently, in the case at had, the applicant has challenged the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act while issuance of notices to him. At this stage wherein complaint has been challenged and no orders have been passed, the Court has is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations as what would be relevant would be whether on the face of the allegations the case is liable to be proceeded or not. In other words whether it is frivolous or not. In the present case, the allegation is that the applicant happens to be the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 claims to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) who had been subjected to domestic violence by the applicant. Further allegation against the applicant is for subjecting the opposite party no. 2 to domestic violence, thus, it is claimed that the applicants come within the definition of respondents under Section 2(r).

7. A bare look of the allegations in the complaint are to the extent that the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence as she was not informed or apprised about the marriage of the applicant with somebody else before solemnization of the marriage with the opposite party no. 2 and the other allegations is regarding additional demand of dowry and is subjecting to domestic violence. The words employed under Section 2(f) defining domestic relationship which means a relationship between two persons who live or have any point of time lived together in shared household when they are related by consumability marriage of two relationship in the nature of marriage and also the definition of the respondents shared household under Section 2(s) meaning a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage have lived in domestic relationship marks significance particularly when it is not a hard and fast rule that the living should be on the date of the lodging of the complaint as it can be at any point of time. Thus, prima facie, the allegations do indicate that the proceedings can be held. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that in pursuance of the first information report, the applicant has already obtained an interim protection from this Court and there happens to be a decree of divorce/dissolution of marriage, these are the matter which apparently from the bare look of the objections preferred by the applicant which is annexure-4 at page 54 of the paper book reference whereof has been made in para 13 of the application do suggest that the applicant submitted his 4 NA528 No. 35252 of 2025 objection on 01.02.2025 raising all the said grounds while contesting the proceedings. In the opinion of the Court, once the applicant himself is contesting the proceedings while filing objection in the months of February 2025 i.e. 01.02.2025 then presentation of the present application on 09.09.2025 without there being any change in the circumstances so shown seeking indulgence of this Court cannot be countenanced. Moreover, it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds and, in case, any order was passed then the remedy also is available under the provisions of the Act. Recently, the scope of proceedings u/s 482 CrPC/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 extent of intervention in the matters where 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 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 5 NA528 No. 35252 of 2025 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."

8. Bearing in mind the overall fact situation, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of. It is left open for the applicant to contest the proceedings taking all legal and factual grounds which are available under law and the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be decided in correct perspective. September 15, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi along with Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the complaint dated 28.04.2023, summoning order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi, as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1330 of 2023 (Dr. Sharda Kusum Vs. Chandan Mishra and others), for the offence under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, Police Station Kotwali Varanasi, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi.

3. The case of the applicant is that on 28.04.2023, a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant on 05.06.2015 and at the time of marriage, huge expenditure were incurred and various precious gifts were offered. Allegation is that post lapsing of six months of marriage, it was discovered that the marriage of the applicant had already been solemnized with one Kamna Pandey eight years ago and the said fact was not disclosed and the opposite party no. 2 was kept in dark jeopardizing her matrimonial relationship. Though the opposite party no. 2 used to discharge her duties as a wife, however, demand of dowry was also being made and on account of non-payment, she was subjected to 2 NA528 No. 35252 of 2025 domestic violence. It is also contended that the aforesaid act and omission of the applicant jeopardized her interest and she was broken from inside on 14.03.2022 a first information report also stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Sections 494, 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act being FIR No. 022 of 2022. Post lodging of the complaint, notices came to be issued and the applicant entered appearance and file its reply/objection on 11.02.2025, a copy whereof is at Annexure-4 at page 53 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act itself is not maintainable for the simple reason that it contains false and incorrect allegations. The opposite party no. 2 was at no point of time subjected to domestic violence only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled without there being any specific allegations. He further submits that the applicant is also contesting the proceedings in first information report No. 022 of 2022 under Sections 494, 498A IPC and 3/4 of the DP Act and further the proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and HMA No. 2141 came to be decided in favour of the applicant on 20.09.2024 and insofar as the first information report is concerned, the applicant has already obtained interim protection in Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 31017 of 2025 on 28.08.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no domestic relationship of under Section 2(f) or shared household under Section 2(s) and the applicant do not answer the description of respondents under Section 2(r) of the Act.

4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that this Court may not interfere at this stage particularly when post issuance of the notices, the applicant himself has entered his appearance and file his objection raising all the grounds which has been sought to be raised herein and according to him, it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings and, in case, any orders have passed which are against the applicant then they are amenable to challenge by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by way of proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

5. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 3 NA528 No. 35252 of 2025

6. Apparently, in the case at had, the applicant has challenged the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act while issuance of notices to him. At this stage wherein complaint has been challenged and no orders have been passed, the Court has is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations as what would be relevant would be whether on the face of the allegations the case is liable to be proceeded or not. In other words whether it is frivolous or not. In the present case, the allegation is that the applicant happens to be the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 claims to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) who had been subjected to domestic violence by the applicant. Further allegation against the applicant is for subjecting the opposite party no. 2 to domestic violence, thus, it is claimed that the applicants come within the definition of respondents under Section 2(r).

7. A bare look of the allegations in the complaint are to the extent that the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence as she was not informed or apprised about the marriage of the applicant with somebody else before solemnization of the marriage with the opposite party no. 2 and the other allegations is regarding additional demand of dowry and is subjecting to domestic violence. The words employed under Section 2(f) defining domestic relationship which means a relationship between two persons who live or have any point of time lived together in shared household when they are related by consumability marriage of two relationship in the nature of marriage and also the definition of the respondents shared household under Section 2(s) meaning a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage have lived in domestic relationship marks significance particularly when it is not a hard and fast rule that the living should be on the date of the lodging of the complaint as it can be at any point of time. Thus, prima facie, the allegations do indicate that the proceedings can be held. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that in pursuance of the first information report, the applicant has already obtained an interim protection from this Court and there happens to be a decree of divorce/dissolution of marriage, these are the matter which apparently from the bare look of the objections preferred by the applicant which is annexure-4 at page 54 of the paper book reference whereof has been made in para 13 of the application do suggest that the applicant submitted his 4 NA528 No. 35252 of 2025 objection on 01.02.2025 raising all the said grounds while contesting the proceedings. In the opinion of the Court, once the applicant himself is contesting the proceedings while filing objection in the months of February 2025 i.e. 01.02.2025 then presentation of the present application on 09.09.2025 without there being any change in the circumstances so shown seeking indulgence of this Court cannot be countenanced. Moreover, it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds and, in case, any order was passed then the remedy also is available under the provisions of the Act. Recently, the scope of proceedings u/s 482 CrPC/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 extent of intervention in the matters where 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 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 5 NA528 No. 35252 of 2025 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."

8. Bearing in mind the overall fact situation, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of. It is left open for the applicant to contest the proceedings taking all legal and factual grounds which are available under law and the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be decided in correct perspective. September 15, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)