Bharti v. Kanhaiya Lal Others), instituted under Sections

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the Case No. 796 of 2022 (Bharti vs. Kanhaiya Lal & Others), instituted under Sections- 12(1), 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, presently pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, District- Hathras.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2-wife, against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Devar, Jethani, Devarani and Nanad. Marriage of the applicant, no. 1, stood solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 19.4.2014 and alleging domestic violence under the provisions of Section 12(1), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a complaint was lodged on 30.8.2022 with an allegation that though the marriage stood solemnized on 19.4.2014 and expenditures and gifts as per the standards of the parents of the opposite party no. 2 were tendered but constant demand of dowry was being made and domestic violence was also being extended to the opposite party no. 2, incident dated 14.01.2015 at one in the noon was also highlighted wherein kerosene oil was being attempted to be poured upon the opposite party no. 2 by the applicants so as to done to death, further allegation is that assault, physical, mental and social harassment was also being meted and even Panchayat was also organized but domestic violence did not cease. Thereafter, notices were issued and the applicant no. 2 being the father-in-law had put in appearance.

4. Questioning the complaints under Domestic Violence Act 2005, and the issuance of the notices, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence. He has further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged various proceedings under different enactments namely Case No. 2364 of 2015, Srimati Bharati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, 106 of 2015 Srimati Bharati v. Kanhaiyalal under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the present case.

6. Submission is that the applicant no. 1 has also lodged proceedings under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act being Divorce Petition No. 647 of 2019. Further submission is that in the proceedings under Section 498A IPC, the applicant no. 1 came to be convicted, a criminal appeal was preferred which came to be rejected and a criminal revision was preferred, the applicant no.1 surrendered and he is on bail. Next submission is that the entire allegations are incorrect.

7. Learned State Officer on the hand submits that whatever might be no orders under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act have been passed and only notices have been issued and the applicant no. 2 father-in- law has himself participated in the proceedings. According to him, this Court may not interfere at this stage as the applicant is to contest the proceedings before the court below and in case any order is passed, then challenge by way of proceedings under Sections 25 or 29 of the Act by filing an appeal.

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

9. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, the applicant no. 1 is the husband of the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 being the wife is an aggrieved person under Section 2(a). Further, the words mentioned in section 2(f) who live or have at any point of time live together signifies that living at any point of time would also create domestic relationship under section 2(f) and further 2(q) defines respondents wherein the applicants are prima facie on the basis of the allegations respondents and so far the question of share household under section 2(s) is concerned, the same depends upon the nature of the relationship of the parties and the allegations therein.

10. Prima facie, looking into the allegations so made, it cannot be said that the same are frivolous, meaning thereby that the case becomes triable. Once the case becomes triable, then this Court, of course, would be reluctant in interfering, particularly when there is nothing so convincible on record.

11. 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 CrPC/ 528 BNSS 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."

12. Looking into the facts and the circumstances of the case and in particular that only notices have been issued and there has been no adverse orders passed and the nature of the remedy so available under the statute, the Court declines to interfere at this stage while leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings while raising all legal and factual grounds and the Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided strictly in a court of law.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025//piyush PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the Case No. 796 of 2022 (Bharti vs. Kanhaiya Lal & Others), instituted under Sections- 12(1), 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, presently pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, District- Hathras.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2-wife, against the applicants, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Devar, Jethani, Devarani and Nanad. Marriage of the applicant, no. 1, stood solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 on 19.4.2014 and alleging domestic violence under the provisions of Section 12(1), 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a complaint was lodged on 30.8.2022 with an allegation that though the marriage stood solemnized on 19.4.2014 and expenditures and gifts as per the standards of the parents of the opposite party no. 2 were tendered but constant demand of dowry was being made and domestic violence was also being extended to the opposite party no. 2, incident dated 14.01.2015 at one in the noon was also highlighted wherein kerosene oil was being attempted to be poured upon the opposite party no. 2 by the applicants so as to done to death, further allegation is that assault, physical, mental and social harassment was also being meted and even Panchayat was also organized but domestic violence did not cease. Thereafter, notices were issued and the applicant no. 2 being the father-in-law had put in appearance.

4. Questioning the complaints under Domestic Violence Act 2005, and the issuance of the notices, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence. He has further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged various proceedings under different enactments namely Case No. 2364 of 2015, Srimati Bharati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, 106 of 2015 Srimati Bharati v. Kanhaiyalal under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the present case.

6. Submission is that the applicant no. 1 has also lodged proceedings under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act being Divorce Petition No. 647 of 2019. Further submission is that in the proceedings under Section 498A IPC, the applicant no. 1 came to be convicted, a criminal appeal was preferred which came to be rejected and a criminal revision was preferred, the applicant no.1 surrendered and he is on bail. Next submission is that the entire allegations are incorrect.

7. Learned State Officer on the hand submits that whatever might be no orders under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act have been passed and only notices have been issued and the applicant no. 2 father-in- law has himself participated in the proceedings. According to him, this Court may not interfere at this stage as the applicant is to contest the proceedings before the court below and in case any order is passed, then challenge by way of proceedings under Sections 25 or 29 of the Act by filing an appeal.

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

9. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, the applicant no. 1 is the husband of the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 being the wife is an aggrieved person under Section 2(a). Further, the words mentioned in section 2(f) who live or have at any point of time live together signifies that living at any point of time would also create domestic relationship under section 2(f) and further 2(q) defines respondents wherein the applicants are prima facie on the basis of the allegations respondents and so far the question of share household under section 2(s) is concerned, the same depends upon the nature of the relationship of the parties and the allegations therein.

10. Prima facie, looking into the allegations so made, it cannot be said that the same are frivolous, meaning thereby that the case becomes triable. Once the case becomes triable, then this Court, of course, would be reluctant in interfering, particularly when there is nothing so convincible on record.

11. 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 CrPC/ 528 BNSS 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."

12. Looking into the facts and the circumstances of the case and in particular that only notices have been issued and there has been no adverse orders passed and the nature of the remedy so available under the statute, the Court declines to interfere at this stage while leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings while raising all legal and factual grounds and the Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided strictly in a court of law.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025//piyush PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad