Tanvi v. Madhur Modi and others) under Section

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Belal, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1202/2023 (Tanvi Vs. Madhur Modi and others) under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act, Police Station- Nandgram, District-Ghaziabad pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No. 6, Ghaziabad.

3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act came to be filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 28.03.2022 against the applicants being husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, nanad and nandoi with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 stood solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 27.02.2020 and in the marriage, several gifts were offered. However, the applicant no. 3 demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, a car and ornaments before three days of marriage and at the time of marriage Rs. 55,00,000/- were spent, however, due to the non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the opposite party no. 2 claims to have been subjected to domestic violence, she was harassed, however, after some days, the applicants demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- cash, a car and it had become a matter of routine that abuses were being hurled and bad treatment was being meted to her, pressure was being mounted upon the opposite party no. 2 to fill the demand by pleading the same before the father. Allegation has been levelled against the applicant no. 5 to the extent that he used to molest and exhibit 2 NA528 No. 35611 of 2025 indecent behaviour and the applicants herein acted as a gang and used to subject the opposite party no. 2 to domestic violence. Post issuance of the notice, the applicants had put in their appearance and an Application u/s 23 of DV Act preferred by the opposite party no. 2, came to be rejected and Annexure- 3 at page 34 of the paper book happens to be an objection preferred by the applicant nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the proceedings so sought to be initiated by the opposite party no. 2 cannot be allowed to be continued particularly when the applicants have not subjected the opposite party no. 2 to any domestic violence and, thus, they do not answer the description of the respondents under section 2(r). Further submission is that whatever allegations are they do not partake the character of any type of domestic violence. Submission is that the allegations are not only omnibus and general but false and concocted just in order to create a case and further the Application u/s 23 of the DV Act was also rejected which shows the hollowness in the claim of the opposite party no. 2.

4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that till date, no orders have been passed and it is for the applicants to contest the said proceedings and the applicants have already filed their objection/reply.

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

6. Apparently, at the stage of challenge is made to the complaint, this Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and to adjudge the same, what would be relevant would be the fact whether the complaint is liable to be proceeded with or it is frivolous or not. So far as the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, she claims herself to be the wife and the daughter-in-law and rest of the applicants are in-laws and she alleges subjection to domestic violence, thus, she answer the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) and since the allegations have been levelled against the applicants who were subjecting her to domestic violence, they answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(r). Further, the question whether there happens to be domestic relationship under Section 2(f) or shared household under Section 2(s), a relationship between two persons who live or or at that any point of time live together in shared household and a shared household means where a 3 NA528 No. 35611 of 2025 person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in domestic relationship. As a matter of fact, the words employed in the said enactments do suggest that it is not a hard and fast rule that on the date of filing of the complaint they should be shared household or domestic relationship as it can be at any stage. Since the allegations are regarding subjection to domestic violence with regard to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and non- fulfillment of desire of obtaining gifts prima facie it cannot be said that the case is not to be proceeded with. Since an order came to be passed rejecting proceedings under Section 23 of the DV Act preferred by the opposite party no. 2 and there are no orders passed against the applicants and the applicant no. 1 to 3 have themselves filed their objections, thus, it is for them to contest the proceedings. As regards, the submission that the applicants no. 4, 5 and 6 have separate living is concerned, the said issue in absence of any convincible document is not required to go into as the same would need evidence and the same would be decided and adjudicated in the proceedings itself. The extent of judicial intervention wherein challenge has been raised to the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act came up for consideration in 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 4 NA528 No. 35611 of 2025 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."

7. Cumulatively analysing the case from four corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be a good ground to interfere, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to take all legal and factual grounds which are permissible and advisable under law before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered with correct perspective and with most expedition. September 16, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Belal, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1202/2023 (Tanvi Vs. Madhur Modi and others) under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act, Police Station- Nandgram, District-Ghaziabad pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No. 6, Ghaziabad.

3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act came to be filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 28.03.2022 against the applicants being husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, nanad and nandoi with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant no. 1 stood solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 27.02.2020 and in the marriage, several gifts were offered. However, the applicant no. 3 demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, a car and ornaments before three days of marriage and at the time of marriage Rs. 55,00,000/- were spent, however, due to the non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the opposite party no. 2 claims to have been subjected to domestic violence, she was harassed, however, after some days, the applicants demanded Rs. 20,00,000/- cash, a car and it had become a matter of routine that abuses were being hurled and bad treatment was being meted to her, pressure was being mounted upon the opposite party no. 2 to fill the demand by pleading the same before the father. Allegation has been levelled against the applicant no. 5 to the extent that he used to molest and exhibit 2 NA528 No. 35611 of 2025 indecent behaviour and the applicants herein acted as a gang and used to subject the opposite party no. 2 to domestic violence. Post issuance of the notice, the applicants had put in their appearance and an Application u/s 23 of DV Act preferred by the opposite party no. 2, came to be rejected and Annexure- 3 at page 34 of the paper book happens to be an objection preferred by the applicant nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the proceedings so sought to be initiated by the opposite party no. 2 cannot be allowed to be continued particularly when the applicants have not subjected the opposite party no. 2 to any domestic violence and, thus, they do not answer the description of the respondents under section 2(r). Further submission is that whatever allegations are they do not partake the character of any type of domestic violence. Submission is that the allegations are not only omnibus and general but false and concocted just in order to create a case and further the Application u/s 23 of the DV Act was also rejected which shows the hollowness in the claim of the opposite party no. 2.

4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that till date, no orders have been passed and it is for the applicants to contest the said proceedings and the applicants have already filed their objection/reply.

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

6. Apparently, at the stage of challenge is made to the complaint, this Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and to adjudge the same, what would be relevant would be the fact whether the complaint is liable to be proceeded with or it is frivolous or not. So far as the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, she claims herself to be the wife and the daughter-in-law and rest of the applicants are in-laws and she alleges subjection to domestic violence, thus, she answer the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) and since the allegations have been levelled against the applicants who were subjecting her to domestic violence, they answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(r). Further, the question whether there happens to be domestic relationship under Section 2(f) or shared household under Section 2(s), a relationship between two persons who live or or at that any point of time live together in shared household and a shared household means where a 3 NA528 No. 35611 of 2025 person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in domestic relationship. As a matter of fact, the words employed in the said enactments do suggest that it is not a hard and fast rule that on the date of filing of the complaint they should be shared household or domestic relationship as it can be at any stage. Since the allegations are regarding subjection to domestic violence with regard to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and non- fulfillment of desire of obtaining gifts prima facie it cannot be said that the case is not to be proceeded with. Since an order came to be passed rejecting proceedings under Section 23 of the DV Act preferred by the opposite party no. 2 and there are no orders passed against the applicants and the applicant no. 1 to 3 have themselves filed their objections, thus, it is for them to contest the proceedings. As regards, the submission that the applicants no. 4, 5 and 6 have separate living is concerned, the said issue in absence of any convincible document is not required to go into as the same would need evidence and the same would be decided and adjudicated in the proceedings itself. The extent of judicial intervention wherein challenge has been raised to the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act came up for consideration in 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 4 NA528 No. 35611 of 2025 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."

7. Cumulatively analysing the case from four corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be a good ground to interfere, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to take all legal and factual grounds which are permissible and advisable under law before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered with correct perspective and with most expedition. September 16, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)