75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24987 of 2025 & Anr. v. Mustafa), under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

1. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned complaint dated 02.03.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint No. 9/2023 (Smt. Mumtaz Vs. Mustafa), under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Agauta, District Bulandshahr, pending in the court of learned IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bulandshahr.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the marriage of the applicant no.1 stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 28.09.2016 and with respect to subjection of domestic violence to the O.P. No.2/wife at the end of the applicant, proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act came to be preferred by O.P. No.2 in the year 2023 with an allegation that on 30.11.2018, there happens to be a confrontation between them with regard to selling a motorcycle (bullet) which was offered as a gift. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The O.P. No.2 has not been subjected to domestic violence, the entire allegation is nothing but a bundle of lies. Further no physical injury was sustained. He further submits that the sister of the O.P. No.2 was married to the brother of the applicant herein. However, the proceedings by way of an FIR being FIR No.46 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 324, 504, 506, 376, 307 IPC came to be lodged by the father of O.P. No.2 against the applicant and others followed by another FIR bearing number "0289 of 2019", under Sections 452, 404 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Muslim Marriage Act against the applicant and his brother. It is also contended that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC came to be instituted by O.P. No.2, in which an order came to be passed for payment of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- against which challenge failed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that post-issuance of notice, the applicant has put in their appearance, the copy of the reply is at page-109 of the paper-book and the case is on evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that none of the provisions contained under Section 2(a), Section 2(s), Section 2(f), Section 2(r) and Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act stands attracted.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the applicant has himself participated in the proceedings and submitted his response, then it is for him to contest the proceedings.

5. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusal of the record, the sole question would arise is the extent of judicial intervention.

6. Apparently, the O.P. No.2 claims herself to be the wife of applicant, thus she answers the description of aggrieved woman under Section 2-A of the Act. Further the words employed in Section 2(f) of the Act itself denote that domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, and Section 2(s) deals with shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship and further Section 2(q) defines respondent, which means a person against whom allegation has been leveled at the end whereof the complainant was put to domestic violence. Since the nature of the allegations contained in the complaint, relate to assault, mental torture and harassment injuries being physical or mental, and the challenge so raised at the stage is to the complaint, bearing in mind the fact that the applicant himself has submitted his response, as he is contesting the case proceedings and the stage is for evidence, the Court does not find it an appropriate case for interference. Moreover, the the judicial intervention in the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/528 of BNSS with relation to the complaint came up for consideration 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."

7. Cumulatively analyzing the case from the four-corners of law, the interference is declined. 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. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad