Priti Dubey v. Ashish Dubey and others), Under Sections

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 1513 of 2024 (Priti Dubey Vs. Ashish Dubey and others), Under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, Police Station.Shelupur, District.Varanasi pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and summoning order dated 12.09.2024 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 13.06.2024 against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law, cousin-father-in-law, cousin-mother-in-law under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant No.1 stood solemnized with the opposite party No. 2 on 14.06.2020 and in the marriage expenditure worth Rs.50 lakhs was incurred and gifts and offerings were made as per the status, however, the applicants were not satisfied with the gifts and the offerings as they expected something more and on non-satisfaction, they committed domestic violence as they continued to make harassment of the opposite party No. 2. On 18.10.2021, a daughter was born with the wedlock of the opposite party No. 2 and the applicant No.1. Complaint further alleges that constant demand of dowry was being made and due to the inability of the opposite party No. 2 to fulfil the same, she was subjected to domestic violence as well as harassment at all levels. Even her mobile phone was snatched and she was compelled to talk to her parents for making the payment and even aspersion was casted upon the conduct of the opposite party No. 2 that she had illicit relationship with somebody else. On 7.7.2021, with regard to raising of a demand of Rs.10 lakhs and non- payment of the same, the opposite party No.2 was assaulted by the applicants and on 11.7.2021, the said information was given by the opposite party No.2 to her parents and the parents came to her matrimonial house of the opposite party No.2 and took her to her maternal house. On the basis of the complaint so lodged by the opposite party No. 2, notices were issued to the applicants.

4. Questioning the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act as well as the notices, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint so lodged by the opposite party No. 2 is nothing but a bundle of lies containing incorrect facts. He has further submitted is that the opposite party No.2 is not entitled to any of the reliefs under Domestic Violence Act particularly when her marriage took place with one Abhishek Pandey and without disclosing the said factum and taking divorce, the second marriage of the opposite party No. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant No. 1 on 14.06.2020.

6. It is contended that the marriage itself is void and once the position being so, no relief whatsoever under the Domestic Violence Act can be claimed. It is further contended that when the said aspect came to the knowledge of the applicants, then a protest was made and a complaint was made to the parents of the opposite party No. 2, who on 21.06.2021 assaulted the applicants pursuant whereto a complaint was lodged on 22.06.2021 to the I.G. Prayagraj and on 24.06.2021 to the Senior Superintendent of Police Prayagraj.

7. Submission is that a first information report also came to be lodged by the applicant No.1 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, FIR No.0157 of 2023 against the opposite party No. 2 faction. It is also submitted that several proceedings have been instituted by the opposite party No. 2 being proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being case No. 724 of 2021 (Preeti Dubey v. Ashish Kumar Dubey) and proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 507 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act being Case Crime No. 348 of 2022 against which Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11538 of 2023 was preferred in which interim protection has been accorded. . Submission is also to the extent that the applicant No. 4 is a practicing lawyer, who is the cousin father-in-law, who had appeared on behalf of applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 in Transfer Application Nos. 179 of 2024, 145 of 2024 and Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26699 of 2023, who is an advocate by profession, he has also been unnecessarily roped in despite the fact that he does not answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(r). Lastly, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 is not an aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there is no domestic relationship under section 2(f), the applicants do not answer the description of respondents under Section 2(r) and there is no shared household under Section 2(s).

8. In nutshell, the submission is that the applicants have been falsely implicated and roped in and in view of the variety of enactments, the opposite party No. 2 is taking recourse to the same just to create harassment and nuisance.

9. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that no adverse orders have been passed as only notices have been issued and in view of the nature of the allegations so levelled in the complaint under domestic violence the proceedings cannot be scuttled. He further submits that it is for the applicants to contest the said proceedings and to take all legal and factual grounds which are , advisable and permissible under law.

10. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. Apparently at the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the complaint under the domestic violence act lodged by the opposite party No. 2 wife and the order issuing notices to the applicants.

11. As per the complaint the opposite party No. 2 claims to be the wife of the applicant No.1, who is the husband and the other applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law, cousin-father-in-law, cousin-mother-in-law. Instances have been given with respect to the dates when the opposite party No. 2 was subjected to domestic violence.

12. To be precise in paragraph 15 of the complaint date 7.7.2021 has been given wherein the opposite party No. 2 was assaulted by the applicants herein. The basis made in the complaint is subjection of domestic violence on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. In order to carve out the case under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act 2005, what would be relevant, would be the fact as to whether the complainant answers the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there is a share household under section 2(s), domestic relationship under 2(f) and the respondents in the complaint against whom domestic violence is being alleged come within the definition of respondents or not.

13. At the stage of challenge to the complaint, only what is to be seen is that the complaint is prima facie, liable to proceed and it is not frivolous.

14. Looking into the nature of the allegations sought to be levelled in the complaint, prima facie, it can be proceeded with. This court at this juncture is not required to adjudge the merits of the allegation. Pertinently, the allegation that the opposite party No. 2 was already married to Abhishek Pandey and without any divorce and disclosing the said marriage, the marriage stood solemnized with applicant No. 1 is concerned, the same is to be dealt with in the appropriate proceedings. This Court in the present proceedings is not required to delve into the said issue and record any finding.

15. As regards the proceedings initiated under Sections 498A IPC and 125 Cr.P.C. are concerned with relation to the allegation of the opposite party no.2 had been subjected to harassment which is a question which would need consideration on its own strength and velocity at the time when the proceedings commences.

16. Nonetheless, as regards the allegation of the applicant No. 4 that since he is an advocate by profession and he had been contesting the cases on behalf of the applicants No. 1, 3, 4 against the opposite party No. 2 and thus he had been arrayed as a respondent is concerned, the same is an aspect which would need consideration when the proceedings are permitted to continue.

17. Since this court is not required to delve or adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations, thus the only possible option would be to contest the trial. In Saurav Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, the Hon. Apex Court had flagged the note of caution in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrP.C/528 B.N.S.S. while observing as under:- "35. There are two parts of Section 482. Both parts save the inherent powers of the High Court. The first part is applicable where the power is exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under 'this Code'. When a notice is issued on an application under Section 12(1), the learned Magistrate does not pass any order under the CrPC. When orders granting any of the reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 are passed, the orders of the learned Magistrate are not under the CrPC. Therefore, the first part of Section 482 cannot apply to proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005.

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 D.V. 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."

18. Cumulatively analysing the case from the four corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interference. Accordingly, interference is declined. Leaving it open to the applicants to take all legal and factual grounds which are permissible while contesting the complaint and in case any orders are passed then to challenge the same as per the remedies available under law.

19. With this said observation, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 piyush PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 1513 of 2024 (Priti Dubey Vs. Ashish Dubey and others), Under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, Police Station.Shelupur, District.Varanasi pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and summoning order dated 12.09.2024 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 13.06.2024 against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law, cousin-father-in-law, cousin-mother-in-law under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with an allegation that the marriage of the applicant No.1 stood solemnized with the opposite party No. 2 on 14.06.2020 and in the marriage expenditure worth Rs.50 lakhs was incurred and gifts and offerings were made as per the status, however, the applicants were not satisfied with the gifts and the offerings as they expected something more and on non-satisfaction, they committed domestic violence as they continued to make harassment of the opposite party No. 2. On 18.10.2021, a daughter was born with the wedlock of the opposite party No. 2 and the applicant No.1. Complaint further alleges that constant demand of dowry was being made and due to the inability of the opposite party No. 2 to fulfil the same, she was subjected to domestic violence as well as harassment at all levels. Even her mobile phone was snatched and she was compelled to talk to her parents for making the payment and even aspersion was casted upon the conduct of the opposite party No. 2 that she had illicit relationship with somebody else. On 7.7.2021, with regard to raising of a demand of Rs.10 lakhs and non- payment of the same, the opposite party No.2 was assaulted by the applicants and on 11.7.2021, the said information was given by the opposite party No.2 to her parents and the parents came to her matrimonial house of the opposite party No.2 and took her to her maternal house. On the basis of the complaint so lodged by the opposite party No. 2, notices were issued to the applicants.

4. Questioning the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act as well as the notices, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint so lodged by the opposite party No. 2 is nothing but a bundle of lies containing incorrect facts. He has further submitted is that the opposite party No.2 is not entitled to any of the reliefs under Domestic Violence Act particularly when her marriage took place with one Abhishek Pandey and without disclosing the said factum and taking divorce, the second marriage of the opposite party No. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant No. 1 on 14.06.2020.

6. It is contended that the marriage itself is void and once the position being so, no relief whatsoever under the Domestic Violence Act can be claimed. It is further contended that when the said aspect came to the knowledge of the applicants, then a protest was made and a complaint was made to the parents of the opposite party No. 2, who on 21.06.2021 assaulted the applicants pursuant whereto a complaint was lodged on 22.06.2021 to the I.G. Prayagraj and on 24.06.2021 to the Senior Superintendent of Police Prayagraj.

7. Submission is that a first information report also came to be lodged by the applicant No.1 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, FIR No.0157 of 2023 against the opposite party No. 2 faction. It is also submitted that several proceedings have been instituted by the opposite party No. 2 being proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being case No. 724 of 2021 (Preeti Dubey v. Ashish Kumar Dubey) and proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 507 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act being Case Crime No. 348 of 2022 against which Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11538 of 2023 was preferred in which interim protection has been accorded. . Submission is also to the extent that the applicant No. 4 is a practicing lawyer, who is the cousin father-in-law, who had appeared on behalf of applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 in Transfer Application Nos. 179 of 2024, 145 of 2024 and Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26699 of 2023, who is an advocate by profession, he has also been unnecessarily roped in despite the fact that he does not answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(r). Lastly, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 is not an aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there is no domestic relationship under section 2(f), the applicants do not answer the description of respondents under Section 2(r) and there is no shared household under Section 2(s).

8. In nutshell, the submission is that the applicants have been falsely implicated and roped in and in view of the variety of enactments, the opposite party No. 2 is taking recourse to the same just to create harassment and nuisance.

9. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that no adverse orders have been passed as only notices have been issued and in view of the nature of the allegations so levelled in the complaint under domestic violence the proceedings cannot be scuttled. He further submits that it is for the applicants to contest the said proceedings and to take all legal and factual grounds which are , advisable and permissible under law.

10. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. Apparently at the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the complaint under the domestic violence act lodged by the opposite party No. 2 wife and the order issuing notices to the applicants.

11. As per the complaint the opposite party No. 2 claims to be the wife of the applicant No.1, who is the husband and the other applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law, cousin-father-in-law, cousin-mother-in-law. Instances have been given with respect to the dates when the opposite party No. 2 was subjected to domestic violence.

12. To be precise in paragraph 15 of the complaint date 7.7.2021 has been given wherein the opposite party No. 2 was assaulted by the applicants herein. The basis made in the complaint is subjection of domestic violence on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. In order to carve out the case under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act 2005, what would be relevant, would be the fact as to whether the complainant answers the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there is a share household under section 2(s), domestic relationship under 2(f) and the respondents in the complaint against whom domestic violence is being alleged come within the definition of respondents or not.

13. At the stage of challenge to the complaint, only what is to be seen is that the complaint is prima facie, liable to proceed and it is not frivolous.

14. Looking into the nature of the allegations sought to be levelled in the complaint, prima facie, it can be proceeded with. This court at this juncture is not required to adjudge the merits of the allegation. Pertinently, the allegation that the opposite party No. 2 was already married to Abhishek Pandey and without any divorce and disclosing the said marriage, the marriage stood solemnized with applicant No. 1 is concerned, the same is to be dealt with in the appropriate proceedings. This Court in the present proceedings is not required to delve into the said issue and record any finding.

15. As regards the proceedings initiated under Sections 498A IPC and 125 Cr.P.C. are concerned with relation to the allegation of the opposite party no.2 had been subjected to harassment which is a question which would need consideration on its own strength and velocity at the time when the proceedings commences.

16. Nonetheless, as regards the allegation of the applicant No. 4 that since he is an advocate by profession and he had been contesting the cases on behalf of the applicants No. 1, 3, 4 against the opposite party No. 2 and thus he had been arrayed as a respondent is concerned, the same is an aspect which would need consideration when the proceedings are permitted to continue.

17. Since this court is not required to delve or adjudicate upon the merits of the allegations, thus the only possible option would be to contest the trial. In Saurav Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, the Hon. Apex Court had flagged the note of caution in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrP.C/528 B.N.S.S. while observing as under:- "35. There are two parts of Section 482. Both parts save the inherent powers of the High Court. The first part is applicable where the power is exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under 'this Code'. When a notice is issued on an application under Section 12(1), the learned Magistrate does not pass any order under the CrPC. When orders granting any of the reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 are passed, the orders of the learned Magistrate are not under the CrPC. Therefore, the first part of Section 482 cannot apply to proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005.

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 D.V. 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."

18. Cumulatively analysing the case from the four corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interference. Accordingly, interference is declined. Leaving it open to the applicants to take all legal and factual grounds which are permissible while contesting the complaint and in case any orders are passed then to challenge the same as per the remedies available under law.

19. With this said observation, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 piyush PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad