Allahabad High Court
Jiya Lal And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106179
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20816 of 2025
Applicant :- Jiya Lal And 8 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 57 of 2025 (Smt. Ranu Devi alias Pranti Devi Versus Jiya Lal & Others) filed under Section 12(1) of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Sardhuwa, District-Chitrakoot, pending in the Court of Judical Magistrate-First, Chitrakoot as well as summoning order dated 31.01.2025, along with Bailable Warrant dated 14.05.2025 passed by Judical Magistrate-First, Chitrakoot.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 31.01.2025 with an allegation that the marriage of applicant no.1 herein stood solemnized with O.P. No.2 on 28.04.2023 post death of the erstwhile husband of O.P. No.2. According to the complaint, the applicant no.1 has illicit relationship with her daughter-in-law and he had transferred the property in favour of her daughter-in-law and he had transferred the property in favour of her daughter-in-law and created a situation of starvation and destitution whereby the O.P. No.2, who claims to be a legally wedded wife had not been accorded any monetary relief in any manner whatsoever. Further allegation is that proceedings under Section 144 BNSS has also been initiated and further the O.P. No.2 was also subjected to domestic violence and her modesty was also outraged and a first information report being Case Crime no.374 of 2024 under Sections 376, 313, 323, 506 IPC was also instituted and the applicant obtained bail by approaching this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 32189 of 2024 on 09.09.2024. On the basis of the complaint, on 31.01.2025, the case was registered, comments were sought from D.P.O. and notices were issued.
4. Questioning the order issuing notices, the applicant has preferred the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that totally false and frivolous allegations have been sought to be leveled, which have no nexus with reality. Submission is that actually no marriage whatsoever had been solemnized of the O.P. No.2 with the applicant and the O.P. No.2 is not an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act and further there is no domestic relationship between the applicant and the O.P. No.2 under Section 2(f) and further applicants do not answer the description of respondents under Section 2(q) and there is no shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act. Further submission is that there is nothing on record even worth consideration that there happens to be any relationship between the applicants and the O.P. No.2 and only for namesake general and vague allegations have been leveled. He further submits that so far as applicant no.2 to 9 are concerned, no role whatsoever has been assigned in the complaint so as to entangle and rope in them. He further submits that it is nothing but the grossest misuse of process of law as the O.P. No.2 taking advantage of variety of provisions has instituted proceedings under different enactments.
6. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that only notices have been issued and there are no adverse order so passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and it is always open for the applicant to contest the proceedings on merits taking all legal and factual grounds and in case, any orders are passed then the remedy under Section 25 of the Act or by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act can be invoked.
7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.
8. In the present case, a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants and in particular applicant no.1, the husband regarding subjection to domestic violence. This Court at this stage, when no orders have been passed but only notices have been issued, is not required to go into the merits of the matter while testing or adjudicating upon the merits of the allegations and they are subject matter of proceedings.
9. Importantly, in the present case no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act, however, bailable warrants have been issued on 03.06.2025.
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 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. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks to rely upon the judgment dated 03.01.2025 passed in Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 856 of 2024, Alisha Berry vs. Neelam Berry, so as to contend that bailable warrant cannot be issued in an application under the D.V. Act, unless there is violation or breach of protection orders. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he shall prefer an application seeking recall of the bailable warrants by 18.07.2025.
12. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of while observing that in case appropriate proceeding in the form of recall application is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided with most expedition, preferably by 31.07.2025 strictly in accordance with the law of the land.
13. Till the recall application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case No. 57 of 2025 (Smt. Ranu Devi alias Pranti Devi Versus Jiya Lal & Others) filed under Section 12(1) of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Sardhuwa, District-Chitrakoot, pending in the Court of Judical Magistrate-First, Chitrakoot.
Order Date :- 7.7.2025
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J)
