Sujata Chaudhry v. Vinay Kumar Aditya & Ors

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A.

2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.01.2024 passed in Crl. Case No.62 of 2024 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, titled ‘Sujata Chaudhry versus Vinay Kumar Aditya & Ors.’, in the Court of learned Civil

Judge (J.D.) First, Twarit/J.M. Ambedkar Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings of the case.

3. The aforesaid application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the D. V. Act’) has been filed by the opposite party No.2 against five persons, including her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the applicants, who are sisters of her husband, stating that the she got married to Vijay Kumar Aditya, brother of the applicants, on 17.11.2018. All the opposite parties to the application harassed her for demanding additional dowry and all of them turned her out of her matrimonial home on 27.09.2023. The opposite party No.2 has prayed for passing of the orders under Section 18 and 19 of the D. V. Act for her protection and residence in her matrimonial home. She has prayed for payment of maintenance to herself and her child and compensation. The opposite party No.2 has also made a prayer for being provided adequate police protection.

4. By means of the impugned order dated 20.01.2024, the said application has been registered and notices have been issued to the opposite parties in the application.

5. While seeking quashing of the proceedings, the applicants have stated that they are married sisters of the husband of the opposite party No.2 and they reside at Lucknow and they have not resided in any shared household with the opposite party No.2.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that if the applicants are compelled to contest the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it will be violative of their fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life of personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. This court fails to understand as to how defending a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in a Court of law would deprive the applicants of their lives or personal liberty as the claim of residence, protection and maintenance will not result in incarceration of the applicants.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Krishnawati Devi v. State of U.P.: 2025 SCC OnLine All 1197, whereby a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed proceedings under Section 12 of the D. V. Act, 2005 on the following ground: - “17. From the perusal of the statement of opposite party no. 2 recorded u/s 200 Cr. P.C. in Case No. 1594 of 2015 u/s 498- A I.P.C. which has been annexed at page 16 of the supplementary affidavit dated 01.11.2022 filed by the applicants, it is clear that the allegation of domestic violence was made against applicant nos. 1 and 7 and it was also not mentioned that applicant nos. 2 to 6 have been residing with her in a shared household. Therefore, impugned proceeding against applicant nos. 2 to 6 is malicious, hence deserves to be quashed.”

9. Thus it is clear that in Krishnawati Devi (Supra), the Court has quashed the proceedings as it was also not mentioned in the statement of the complainant that the applicant nos. 2 to 6 had been residing with her in a shared household. In the present case, the statement of the applicant is yet to be recorded by the trial and it is not that from the statement of the complainant the allegation of domestic violence is not made out against the applicant. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different from the facts of Krishnawati Devi (Supra).

10. The learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that the applicants being married sisters of the complainant’s husband, who are residing in their respective matrimonial homes, would be subjected to undue hardship by putting in appearance before the trial Court and defending the complaint.

11. By means of the impugned order dated 20.01.2024, the trial court has merely registered the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act, issued notices of the application to the opposite parties and has referred the matter to the mediation and conciliation center and a report has been called from the District Probation Officer. In case the mediation between the opposite party and her husband succeed, there will be no occasion for the trial Court to proceed any further. In case the mediation proceedings do not result in any settlement, the applicants would have an opportunity to put in appearance before the trial Court and place their version, including their objection against maintainability of the complaint under Section 12 of the D. V. Act against them.

12. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

13. In Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: - “35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 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. 36. We must also note here that against an order passed by a learned Magistrate, there is an appeal provided under Section 29 to the Court of Session. In contrast, generally, there is no remedy of appeal available against an order taking cognisance of an offence or an order issuing process. This is another reason why the High Court should exercise caution when exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005.”

14. The applicants claim that they are married sisters of the husband of (Emphasis added) the opposite party No.2 residing in their respective matrimonial homes. Even if they are unable to contest the complaint under Section 12 of the D. V. Act, the other opposite parties, including the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant may contest the complaint. Even if the complaint is allowed and even if all the prayers made in the complaint are allowed, the opposite party No. 2 would get a right to reside in her matrimonial home. The applicants are residing in their respective matrimonial homes and they are not residing in the home in which the complainant is claiming a right of residence. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the applicants. The claim of maintenance made by the opposite party No.2 is obviously directed against and enforceable against her husband and not against the applicants and the passing of any maintenance order will also not cause any prejudice to the applicants.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the mere issuance of notice of the complaint and referral of the matter to the mediation and conciliation center would not defeat the ends of justice and there is no good ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date: 10.07.2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Judge (J.D.) First, Twarit/J.M. Ambedkar Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings of the case.

3. The aforesaid application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the D. V. Act’) has been filed by the opposite party No.2 against five persons, including her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the applicants, who are sisters of her husband, stating that the she got married to Vijay Kumar Aditya, brother of the applicants, on 17.11.2018. All the opposite parties to the application harassed her for demanding additional dowry and all of them turned her out of her matrimonial home on 27.09.2023. The opposite party No.2 has prayed for passing of the orders under Section 18 and 19 of the D. V. Act for her protection and residence in her matrimonial home. She has prayed for payment of maintenance to herself and her child and compensation. The opposite party No.2 has also made a prayer for being provided adequate police protection.

4. By means of the impugned order dated 20.01.2024, the said application has been registered and notices have been issued to the opposite parties in the application.

5. While seeking quashing of the proceedings, the applicants have stated that they are married sisters of the husband of the opposite party No.2 and they reside at Lucknow and they have not resided in any shared household with the opposite party No.2.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that if the applicants are compelled to contest the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it will be violative of their fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life of personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. This court fails to understand as to how defending a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in a Court of law would deprive the applicants of their lives or personal liberty as the claim of residence, protection and maintenance will not result in incarceration of the applicants.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Krishnawati Devi v. State of U.P.: 2025 SCC OnLine All 1197, whereby a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed proceedings under Section 12 of the D. V. Act, 2005 on the following ground: - “17. From the perusal of the statement of opposite party no. 2 recorded u/s 200 Cr. P.C. in Case No. 1594 of 2015 u/s 498- A I.P.C. which has been annexed at page 16 of the supplementary affidavit dated 01.11.2022 filed by the applicants, it is clear that the allegation of domestic violence was made against applicant nos. 1 and 7 and it was also not mentioned that applicant nos. 2 to 6 have been residing with her in a shared household. Therefore, impugned proceeding against applicant nos. 2 to 6 is malicious, hence deserves to be quashed.”

9. Thus it is clear that in Krishnawati Devi (Supra), the Court has quashed the proceedings as it was also not mentioned in the statement of the complainant that the applicant nos. 2 to 6 had been residing with her in a shared household. In the present case, the statement of the applicant is yet to be recorded by the trial and it is not that from the statement of the complainant the allegation of domestic violence is not made out against the applicant. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different from the facts of Krishnawati Devi (Supra).

10. The learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that the applicants being married sisters of the complainant’s husband, who are residing in their respective matrimonial homes, would be subjected to undue hardship by putting in appearance before the trial Court and defending the complaint.

11. By means of the impugned order dated 20.01.2024, the trial court has merely registered the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act, issued notices of the application to the opposite parties and has referred the matter to the mediation and conciliation center and a report has been called from the District Probation Officer. In case the mediation between the opposite party and her husband succeed, there will be no occasion for the trial Court to proceed any further. In case the mediation proceedings do not result in any settlement, the applicants would have an opportunity to put in appearance before the trial Court and place their version, including their objection against maintainability of the complaint under Section 12 of the D. V. Act against them.

12. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

13. In Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: - “35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 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. 36. We must also note here that against an order passed by a learned Magistrate, there is an appeal provided under Section 29 to the Court of Session. In contrast, generally, there is no remedy of appeal available against an order taking cognisance of an offence or an order issuing process. This is another reason why the High Court should exercise caution when exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005.”

14. The applicants claim that they are married sisters of the husband of (Emphasis added) the opposite party No.2 residing in their respective matrimonial homes. Even if they are unable to contest the complaint under Section 12 of the D. V. Act, the other opposite parties, including the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant may contest the complaint. Even if the complaint is allowed and even if all the prayers made in the complaint are allowed, the opposite party No. 2 would get a right to reside in her matrimonial home. The applicants are residing in their respective matrimonial homes and they are not residing in the home in which the complainant is claiming a right of residence. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the applicants. The claim of maintenance made by the opposite party No.2 is obviously directed against and enforceable against her husband and not against the applicants and the passing of any maintenance order will also not cause any prejudice to the applicants.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the mere issuance of notice of the complaint and referral of the matter to the mediation and conciliation center would not defeat the ends of justice and there is no good ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date: 10.07.2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench