Allahabad High Court
Vakar Ahmad And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101850
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19446 of 2025
Applicant :- Vakar Ahmad And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for the Applicant:- Suman Kumar Yadav, Vinay Pratap Singh
Counsel for the Opposite Party:- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A.
2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the proceeding of Case no. 1494 of 2023 (Sana Zahir Vs Vakar Ahamad & Others), under section 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Mahila Thana, Bijnor, District Bijnor..
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage stood solemnized between O.P. No.2 and the applicant no.1 on 04.03.2023. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act against the applicant and other family members with an allegation that though in the marriage, an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was spent and gifts as per the status were offered but demand was being raised for additional dowry. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 03.09.2023, she was subjected to violence and further on 06.09.2023, pressure was also being exerted for divorce as papers were also ready, but the same could not be materialized on account of the resistance being offered by the O.P. No.2. The complaint further alleges that the O.P. no.2 also lodged proceedings under Sections 323, 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against the applicants herein. The court below thereafter issued notices to the applicants.
4. Questioning the entire proceedings including the complaint under the D.V. Act, the present application has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint contains incorrect facts, which has no nexus with the reality, particularly when there had been no demand raised for dowry. He submits that just in order to harass the applicants, criminal proceedings under different forums have been sought to be invoked. According to him, the O.P. no.2 is a teacher in a school and she on her own had left the matrimonial house. There was no act or omission on the part of the applicants for demand of dowry or divorce in any manner whatsoever.
6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever might be, only notices have been issued and there are no orders passed under Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is for the applicant to take all the legal and factual grounds while contesting the said proceedings. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025, Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, decided on 19.05.2025, wherein a note of caution was flagged by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court in the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS should not in a routine manner interfere.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. The first and foremost question which would arise for consideration would be as to whether on the face of the allegations contained in the complaint, the matter can be proceeded with by the court below or not. This Court at this juncture is not required to go into the veracity of the truth or the merits of the allegations, but what is to be seen is as to whether the complaint is frivolous or not.
9. Looking into the nature of the allegations, it cannot be said that the case is not to be proceeded with. Even otherwise, the Court finds that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the court below. Nonetheless, apparently, no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act against the applicants and in case, any order has been passed, then it will always be open for the applicants to take adequate remedies as provided under the Act. Only notices have been issued, thus it would be appropriate for the applicant to contest the said proceedings. In Saurabh Kumar Tripathi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs-35 and 39, has 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."
10. Accordingly, looking into the over all facts and circumstances, interference is declined. However, the application is disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds before the court below, and in case the said grounds are taken, then this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered on a correct perspective.
Order Date :- 2.7.2025
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J)
