Allahabad High Court
Shivaji Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114606
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22297 of 2025
Applicant :- Shivaji Singh and 2 others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Court of Magistrate, Village Court, Salempur, District-Deoria as well as quash the entire proceedings of Case No.22 of 2024 (Alpana Singh V. Surendra Nath Singh) filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the Court of Magistrate, Village Court, Salempur, District-Deoria.
3. The case of the applicants is that the applicants no. 1 and 2 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law and the applicant no. 3 is the mother-in-law, marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with late Rana Pratap Singh on 12.12.2008 and with their wedlock, a son was born namely, Rajveer Singh on 15.01.2012. In connection with the murder of the brother of the applicant no. 1 and the son of the applicant no. 3 post lodging of the first information report and conduction of the investigation and trial the opposite party no. 2-wife along with others were convicted for the murder of the brother of the applicant no. 1 and the son of the applicant no. 3 under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC vide judgment and order dated 10.06.2022 by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. Thereafter, criminal appeal came to be preferred before the High Court of Uttrakhand in which on 28.09.2022 the opposite party no. 2 was enlarged on bail. Post enlargement on bail, the opposite party no. 2 attempted to alienate the property of the brother of the applicant no. 1 and the son of the applicant no. 3, thus, it is claimed that the applicant no. 1 instituted Civil Suit No. 136 of 2021 for injunction restraining the opposite party no. 2 from alienating of the joint family property. The injunction application came to be rejected by the court on 19.07.2022 against which a Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2023 was preferred in which an order of status quo was passed on 13.03.2024. It is further claimed that the opposite party no. 2 thereafter instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act on 22.11.2024. Pursuant whereto, the notices have been issued to the applicants.
4. Questioning the complaint as well as the order issuing notice, the present application has been filed.
5. Learned counsle for the applicant has submitted that the complaint so lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 12 of the DV Act is not maintainable particularly when the same is nothing but the grossest misuse of process of law. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the said complaint came to be lodged on 22.11.2024 that too containing incorrect allegations regarding subjection to domestic violence. Submission is that no such domestic violence has been committed and it is rather the applicants who are being harassed in all possible manners. Argument is that the conduct of the opposite party no. 2 is writ large from the fact that the opposite party no. 2 was convicted for murder of her husband and she has been enlarged on bail and just in order to settle score and exert pressure and to dictate term for withdrawal of civil proceedings, the entire allegations have been levelled.
6. In a nutshell the submission is that the complaint itself has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay in that regard wherein at best the allegations can be referable to of the year 2019.
7. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, while countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicants submits that no order under Chapter IV of the DV Act has been passed, however, only notices have been issued and it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings on merit while taking legal and factual grounds an no case is made out for interference.
8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
9. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings at this stage is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 22.11.2024 under Section 12 of the DV Act against the applicants herein who happen to be brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law. Records reveal that with respect to the allegation of the murder of the husband of the opposite party no. 2 being the brother of the applicant no. 1 and son of the applicant no. 3, the opposite party no. 2 was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC. It is apparent that she was convicted on 10.06.2022 and against the conviction, an appeal came to be preferred by the opposite party no. 2 and she was enlarged on bail on 28.09.2022. Page 21 of the paper book shows that the opposite party no. 2 was in jail since 11.08.2019. Post release on bail, the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act has been filed.
10. As a matter of fact, this Court in the present proceedings at a stage wherein complaint had been challenged and there is no order passed under Chapter IV then the Court is not required to go into the merit of the allegations what would be relevant would be a prima facie satisfaction whether the complaint can be proceeded or not. Here, in the present case, the opposite party no. 2 happens to be the wife of the deceased who was the brother of the applicant 1 and the son of the applicant no. 3. The question would be whether the opposite party no. 2 answers the description of an aggrieved person Section 2(a), domestic relationship exists Section 2(f), and the shared household under Section 2(s) and the applicants who are the opposite parties in the complaint are the respondents under Section 2(q) of the Act or not depends upon the allegation in complaint.
11. A bare look of the complaint would depict that prima facie on the basis of the allegations, the opposite party no. 2 happens to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) and there is a shared household under Section 2(s), domestic relationship is under Section 2(f) and the applicants are respondents under Section 2(r). The question as to whether there is any merit in the allegations so as to determine that the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence is a subject matter of trial. Since no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and there is nothing on record so as to suggest otherwise the complaint is liable to be proceeded and decided on its own merit. As regards, the conviction of the opposite party no. 2 by the courts of law is concerned in the present proceedings, this Court is not required to give any finding upon the same. Pendency of a civil suit stood instituted by the applicant no. 1 is an issue which is also not required to be dealt with in the present proceedings at this stage. The question of delay, if any, in lodging the complaint is a question of defence which can be raised at an appropriate stage when the trial commences. The extent of judicial intervention in the present proceedings wherein challenge has been raised to the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) decided on 19.05.2025, Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of intervention in the matters where complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, it was observed as under.-
"...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.
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."
12. Analysing the case from the four corners of law, this Court finds that the present case does not come within the exception so as to warrant interference. Interference is declined, the application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds and contesting the proceedings and this Court has no reasons disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.7.2025
Rajesh
