Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112396 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42091 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Shaifali Goyal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred to quash the order dated 03/10/24 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC-2 Gautambudhdh Nagar, in arising Case no. 682 of 2024, U/s 12 D.V. Act, Police Station- Bishrakh, District- Gautambudhdh Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of the Domestic Violence Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2-wife against the mother-in-law with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the son of the applicant on 08.12.2023, however, the opposite party no. 2 was being subjected to domestic violence. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 07.04.2024 without there being any reason, the police was called and the applicant was subjected to domestic violence. Allegation is that it had become a matter of routine for committing domestic violence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even the opposite party no. 2 has also lodged proceedings under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DV Act being FIR No. 0315 of 2024 against the husband of the opposite party no. 2, father-in-law applicant herein Nanad, Nandoi, Mama and Mami. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire allegations are totally omnibus and general and there is no truth under the same. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been summoned to appear on 05.11.2024. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that no adverse order has been passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act and only notices have been issued and it is for the applicant to contest the said proceedings by putting in appearance taking all legal and valid grounds. 5. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record. 6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, proceedings under DV Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 against mother-in-law. What is required at this stage when only complaint is being subject matter of challenge coupled with the issuance of notice without there being any orders passe under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act would be the fact as to whether on the basis of the allegations the case is triable and the opposite party no. 2-complainant happens to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) and there is domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and the respondents in the complaint are respondents within the definition of Section 2(r) and there is a shared house hold under Section 2(s). Since, prima facie, the allegations are with respect to domestic violence against mother-in-law, thus, it wold not be appropriate for this Court to scuttle the proceedings. Recently, the scope of proceedings u/s 482 CrPC/528 BNSS 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, wherein para 35 and 39 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." 7. Cumulatively analysing the case from four corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be a good ground to interfere, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds which are permissible and advisable under law before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered with correct perspective. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad