High Court · 2025

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav and Sri Abhinav Shukla, on behalf of O.P. No.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhinav Shukla for O.P. No.2 and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

3. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not want to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

4. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 2033 of 2022, Smt. Sanowar Sharma vs. Vishal Narayan U/s 12 D.V. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC Court No. 1, Ghaziabad. It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 2033 of 2022, Smt. Sanowar Sharma vs. Vishal Narayan U/s 12 D.V. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division/ETC Court No. 1. Ghaziabad.

5.The case of the applicant is that the applicants happen to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of O.P. No.2, whose marriage stood solemnized with applicant no.1 on 08.06.2015. As per the applicants, prior to the lodging of the present proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 on 22.06.2022, the O.P. No.2 had instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad being Matrimonial Case No.1273 of 2021 on 30.06.2021. Thereafter proceedings under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was instituted against the applicants for the offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 452, 406, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 28.07.2021 and now, the impugned proceedings under Domestic Violence Act has been instituted. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sections 498 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act as well as in the present proceedings also, the allegations are the same, however, in order to harass the applicants in all possible manner, the O.P. No.2 has lodged proceedings under different enactments in view of variety of provisions. Submission is that the O.P. No.2 even does not want to reside with the applicants and just in order to just exert pressure and to dictate terms and to impose ego has lodged the proceedings for the reasons other than bonafide. It is also contended that the present proceeding is nothing but to add criminal flavour to the entire controversy, so as to keep the applicants behind the bar. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that even the complaint does not show any act or omission of domestic violence and further variety of reliefs have been claimed. He submits that though notices have been issued, but the complaint itself is nothing but the grossest misuse of process of law and this Court may come to the rescue of the applicants.

6. Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, only complaint has been lodged and notices have been issued and no orders under Chapter IV of the Act has been passed, thus it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings and to substantiate the stand and in case, any order passed, which according to the applicants are adverse, then they are amenable to challenge by way of appeal or by preferring proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

7. I have heard and perused the record carefully and perused the record carefully.

8. At the instance of the applicants, challenge has been raised to the complaint under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the issuance of notice. No adverse orders have been passed, thus this Court at this stage is not required to go into the merits of the allegations. However, what would be material would be a prima facie evaluation of the allegations just in order to determine whether they are frivolous or not so as to form an opinion on prima facie basis that the proceedings can go on or not.

9. Apparently, the O.P. No.2 claims to be the wife of applicant no.1 and applicant no.2, 3 and 4 happen to be father-in-law, mother-in- law and sister-in-law. The O.P. No.2 alleges subjection of domestic violence at the hands of applicants. The nature of the allegations and the relationship between the parties would be a factor that too on prima facie basis to evaluate whether the O.P. No.2 comes within the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there happens to be domestic relationship under Section 2(f), the applicants herein, who are Opposite Party in the complaint, are respondents under Section 2(q) and whether there are shared household under Section 2(s). A bare look of the complaint would reveal that the allegation is post-marriage, demand was being raised for a four-wheeler and a post-purchase of the same of an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. It is also alleged that the applicants herein used to assault, hurled abuses and demanded money. Instances have been recited in the complaint. Prima facie, looking into the nature of the allegations and the relationship of the parties, it cannot be out-rightly prima facie said that the complaint is frivolous. The veracity of the allegations are to be adjudged in the proceedings when they are allowed to continue. The arguments so raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that several proceedings have been initiated commencing from Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 498-A of IPC as well as the present complaint and the allegations are one and the same is concerned, the same is a subject matter which is to be raised and dealt with when the proceedings are allowed to continue. It is for the applicants to establish their stand while contending that the complaint itself contains incorrect allegations and it has been used as a tool and device to harass them.

10. At this stage, this Court is not require to delve into the merits of the allegations, as they are subject matter of proceedings before the trial court. The extent of judicial intervention in the matters of the complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act, wherein no orders have been passed, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, wherein 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." 11. Bearing in mind the fact that no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued as well as the nature of the allegations and relationship of the parties, this Court does not find it appropriate at this stage to interfere.

12. Accordingly interference is declined, leaving it open to the applicants to contest the proceedings while making all legal and factual submissions, which are permissible and advisable under law and on being raised, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law of the land.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav and Sri Abhinav Shukla, on behalf of O.P. No.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhinav Shukla for O.P. No.2 and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

3. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not want to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

4. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 2033 of 2022, Smt. Sanowar Sharma vs. Vishal Narayan U/s 12 D.V. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC Court No. 1, Ghaziabad. It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 2033 of 2022, Smt. Sanowar Sharma vs. Vishal Narayan U/s 12 D.V. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division/ETC Court No. 1. Ghaziabad.

5.The case of the applicant is that the applicants happen to be husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of O.P. No.2, whose marriage stood solemnized with applicant no.1 on 08.06.2015. As per the applicants, prior to the lodging of the present proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 on 22.06.2022, the O.P. No.2 had instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad being Matrimonial Case No.1273 of 2021 on 30.06.2021. Thereafter proceedings under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was instituted against the applicants for the offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 452, 406, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 28.07.2021 and now, the impugned proceedings under Domestic Violence Act has been instituted. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sections 498 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act as well as in the present proceedings also, the allegations are the same, however, in order to harass the applicants in all possible manner, the O.P. No.2 has lodged proceedings under different enactments in view of variety of provisions. Submission is that the O.P. No.2 even does not want to reside with the applicants and just in order to just exert pressure and to dictate terms and to impose ego has lodged the proceedings for the reasons other than bonafide. It is also contended that the present proceeding is nothing but to add criminal flavour to the entire controversy, so as to keep the applicants behind the bar. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that even the complaint does not show any act or omission of domestic violence and further variety of reliefs have been claimed. He submits that though notices have been issued, but the complaint itself is nothing but the grossest misuse of process of law and this Court may come to the rescue of the applicants.

6. Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, only complaint has been lodged and notices have been issued and no orders under Chapter IV of the Act has been passed, thus it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings and to substantiate the stand and in case, any order passed, which according to the applicants are adverse, then they are amenable to challenge by way of appeal or by preferring proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

7. I have heard and perused the record carefully and perused the record carefully.

8. At the instance of the applicants, challenge has been raised to the complaint under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the issuance of notice. No adverse orders have been passed, thus this Court at this stage is not required to go into the merits of the allegations. However, what would be material would be a prima facie evaluation of the allegations just in order to determine whether they are frivolous or not so as to form an opinion on prima facie basis that the proceedings can go on or not.

9. Apparently, the O.P. No.2 claims to be the wife of applicant no.1 and applicant no.2, 3 and 4 happen to be father-in-law, mother-in- law and sister-in-law. The O.P. No.2 alleges subjection of domestic violence at the hands of applicants. The nature of the allegations and the relationship between the parties would be a factor that too on prima facie basis to evaluate whether the O.P. No.2 comes within the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there happens to be domestic relationship under Section 2(f), the applicants herein, who are Opposite Party in the complaint, are respondents under Section 2(q) and whether there are shared household under Section 2(s). A bare look of the complaint would reveal that the allegation is post-marriage, demand was being raised for a four-wheeler and a post-purchase of the same of an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. It is also alleged that the applicants herein used to assault, hurled abuses and demanded money. Instances have been recited in the complaint. Prima facie, looking into the nature of the allegations and the relationship of the parties, it cannot be out-rightly prima facie said that the complaint is frivolous. The veracity of the allegations are to be adjudged in the proceedings when they are allowed to continue. The arguments so raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that several proceedings have been initiated commencing from Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 498-A of IPC as well as the present complaint and the allegations are one and the same is concerned, the same is a subject matter which is to be raised and dealt with when the proceedings are allowed to continue. It is for the applicants to establish their stand while contending that the complaint itself contains incorrect allegations and it has been used as a tool and device to harass them.

10. At this stage, this Court is not require to delve into the merits of the allegations, as they are subject matter of proceedings before the trial court. The extent of judicial intervention in the matters of the complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act, wherein no orders have been passed, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, wherein 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." 11. Bearing in mind the fact that no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and only notices have been issued as well as the nature of the allegations and relationship of the parties, this Court does not find it appropriate at this stage to interfere.

12. Accordingly interference is declined, leaving it open to the applicants to contest the proceedings while making all legal and factual submissions, which are permissible and advisable under law and on being raised, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law of the land.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad