High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Prakash Tiwari (AoR No. A/S 0146/2022) holding brief of Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants, who are 3 in number, and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for seeking a direction for the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat to decide the applicants’ application filed u/s 379/215 BNSS (old 340/195 Cr.P.C.) in Case no. 46/2024 (Smt. Preeti v. Vijay Saroha & others) u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act 2005, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat.

3. The case of the applicants is that on 19.04.2024, a complaint stood preferred by O.P. No.2 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 against the applicants, who have been arraigned as husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law with an allegation that the marriage of O.P. no.2 stood solemnized on 07.12.2024 with Johny son of Jagat Singh, however, due to Corona, he expired on 04.05.2021 and thereafter, on 20.10.2021, the marriage of O.P. No.2 stood solemnized with the applicant no.1. As per the allegation, the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry was being made and on 15.08.2022, the O.P. No.2 was assaulted and beaten by the applicants on the pretext that it is compulsory for O.P. No.2 to give birth to a son so that the lineage may go on. Further submission is that though the O.P. No.2 was blessed with two female child, they were thrown out of the matrimonial house and thereafter, when the O.P. No.2 along with her parents and one Jaswant approached the applicants, then the applicants raised additional demand of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. It is also the allegation in the complaint that the stridhan and the valuables which the O.P. No.2 possessed, were snatched away. Proceedings were also initiated under Section 406 IPC as well as Section 125 of CrPC. On the basis of the complaint under D.V. Act, the notices came to be issued to the applicants on 19.04.2024.

4. Questioning the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act as well as issuance of notice, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable, particularly in view of the fact that it contains totally false and incorrect allegations, which have got no nexus with reality. Submission is that post-death of Johny, O.P. No.2 was never married to applicant no.1. Further submission is that the O.P. No.2, in view of the variety of reliefs under different enactments is invoking the same, which is creating a situation whereby at all levels the applicants are being meted with harassment. Submission is that there has been no demand of dowry and further there is no question of domestic violence. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the O.P. No.2 does not answer the description of the aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there is no domestic relationship under Section 2(f), there is no shared-household under Section 2(s) and further the applicants cannot be termed to be respondents in the complaint under Section 2(r) of the Act. Further submission is that proceedings under Section 195 of the BNSS as well as Section 340 of CrPC, had also been initiated but the matter is pending.

6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that no order whatsoever has been passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act and at this stage, only complaint and issuance of notice have been challenged and once any adverse order is passed, then they are amenable to challenge under section 25 of the Act and by way of preferring an appeal under Section 29 of the Act.

7. I have heard the submission so raised across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

8. At the instance of the applicants, challenge has been raised to the maintainability of the complaint as well as issuance of the notice. At this stage, when indulgence has been sought, when no adverse orders have been passed, then what would be relevant, would be whether the allegations would lead to a situation whereby the case is triable or not. In order to determine the same, what would be relevant would be the nature of the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis the status of the party.

9. Apparently, the O.P. no.2 claims to be the wife of the applicant no.1 being the second marriage as she was earlier married to one Johny who expired in during Covid-19 period. Thus prima facie on the basis of the complaint the O.P. No.2 answers the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a). So far as the domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and shared-household under Section 2(s) and respondents under Section 2(r) of the Act are concerned, that solely depends upon the allegations. Since the merits of the allegations are not to be gone into at this stage, when the complaint is being questioned, thus what would be relevant would be whether on the basis of the allegations his case is triable or not. Since allegations of demand of dowry and subjection to domestic violence at the end of the applicants no. 1, 2 and 3, who happens to be husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law has been made, thus this Court at this stage does not find it appropriate to interfere with the complaint. Further the court finds that the applicants herein have already filed proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act on 28.11.2024 which is apparent from Annexure-6 at page-95 of the paper-book, reference whereof is made in paragraph-20 of the application and already proceeding under Section 195 of BNSS and Section 340 CrPC has already been initiated, thus it is the applicants to contest the proceedings.

10. 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, wherein challenge has been raised to the complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act, 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. Cumulatively analyzing the case from the four-corners of law, and bearing in mind the nature of the allegations and the stage, wherein the applicants have already contesting the proceedings and also no adverse orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act, the interference is declined.

12. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceeding on merit while taking all legal and factual grounds and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Prakash Tiwari (AoR No. A/S 0146/2022) holding brief of Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants, who are 3 in number, and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for seeking a direction for the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat to decide the applicants’ application filed u/s 379/215 BNSS (old 340/195 Cr.P.C.) in Case no. 46/2024 (Smt. Preeti v. Vijay Saroha & others) u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act 2005, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat.

3. The case of the applicants is that on 19.04.2024, a complaint stood preferred by O.P. No.2 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 against the applicants, who have been arraigned as husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law with an allegation that the marriage of O.P. no.2 stood solemnized on 07.12.2024 with Johny son of Jagat Singh, however, due to Corona, he expired on 04.05.2021 and thereafter, on 20.10.2021, the marriage of O.P. No.2 stood solemnized with the applicant no.1. As per the allegation, the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry was being made and on 15.08.2022, the O.P. No.2 was assaulted and beaten by the applicants on the pretext that it is compulsory for O.P. No.2 to give birth to a son so that the lineage may go on. Further submission is that though the O.P. No.2 was blessed with two female child, they were thrown out of the matrimonial house and thereafter, when the O.P. No.2 along with her parents and one Jaswant approached the applicants, then the applicants raised additional demand of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. It is also the allegation in the complaint that the stridhan and the valuables which the O.P. No.2 possessed, were snatched away. Proceedings were also initiated under Section 406 IPC as well as Section 125 of CrPC. On the basis of the complaint under D.V. Act, the notices came to be issued to the applicants on 19.04.2024.

4. Questioning the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act as well as issuance of notice, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint itself is not maintainable, particularly in view of the fact that it contains totally false and incorrect allegations, which have got no nexus with reality. Submission is that post-death of Johny, O.P. No.2 was never married to applicant no.1. Further submission is that the O.P. No.2, in view of the variety of reliefs under different enactments is invoking the same, which is creating a situation whereby at all levels the applicants are being meted with harassment. Submission is that there has been no demand of dowry and further there is no question of domestic violence. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the O.P. No.2 does not answer the description of the aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there is no domestic relationship under Section 2(f), there is no shared-household under Section 2(s) and further the applicants cannot be termed to be respondents in the complaint under Section 2(r) of the Act. Further submission is that proceedings under Section 195 of the BNSS as well as Section 340 of CrPC, had also been initiated but the matter is pending.

6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that no order whatsoever has been passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act and at this stage, only complaint and issuance of notice have been challenged and once any adverse order is passed, then they are amenable to challenge under section 25 of the Act and by way of preferring an appeal under Section 29 of the Act.

7. I have heard the submission so raised across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

8. At the instance of the applicants, challenge has been raised to the maintainability of the complaint as well as issuance of the notice. At this stage, when indulgence has been sought, when no adverse orders have been passed, then what would be relevant, would be whether the allegations would lead to a situation whereby the case is triable or not. In order to determine the same, what would be relevant would be the nature of the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis the status of the party.

9. Apparently, the O.P. no.2 claims to be the wife of the applicant no.1 being the second marriage as she was earlier married to one Johny who expired in during Covid-19 period. Thus prima facie on the basis of the complaint the O.P. No.2 answers the description of aggrieved person under Section 2(a). So far as the domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and shared-household under Section 2(s) and respondents under Section 2(r) of the Act are concerned, that solely depends upon the allegations. Since the merits of the allegations are not to be gone into at this stage, when the complaint is being questioned, thus what would be relevant would be whether on the basis of the allegations his case is triable or not. Since allegations of demand of dowry and subjection to domestic violence at the end of the applicants no. 1, 2 and 3, who happens to be husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law has been made, thus this Court at this stage does not find it appropriate to interfere with the complaint. Further the court finds that the applicants herein have already filed proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act on 28.11.2024 which is apparent from Annexure-6 at page-95 of the paper-book, reference whereof is made in paragraph-20 of the application and already proceeding under Section 195 of BNSS and Section 340 CrPC has already been initiated, thus it is the applicants to contest the proceedings.

10. 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, wherein challenge has been raised to the complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act, 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. Cumulatively analyzing the case from the four-corners of law, and bearing in mind the nature of the allegations and the stage, wherein the applicants have already contesting the proceedings and also no adverse orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act, the interference is declined.

12. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceeding on merit while taking all legal and factual grounds and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad