Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44223 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10420 of 2025 Applicant :- Kailash Nath Dubey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Dubey,Shabeena Begum Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Ms. Shabeena Begum, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the quash the Complaint dated 27.07.2023, as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case no. 99311/2023, between Nitu Diwedi v/s Kailash Nath Dubey and another, under section-12 domestic Violence Act, Police Station- Bhelupur, District-Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.1 happens to be father-in-law and applicant no.2- devar. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the marriage of O.P. No.2 stood solemnized on 14.05.1997 with the son of applicant no.1 and brother of applicant no.2. Submission is that the O.P. no.2 had never lived in the shared household and further the applicants cannot be termed as respondents as per section 2(q) of the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She submits that the husband of the O.P. No.2 used to stay and the marriage also stood solemnized in the maternal grandmother's place and thus, the issuance of the notice itself is illegal. She further submits that the entire proceedings be stayed. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that till date, as per the order-sheet and the arguments so sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, there has been no order passed under Chapter-IV of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 so as to entail any remedy might be under Section 29 of the Act itself. He further seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of Smt. Suman Mishra vs. State of U.P., Application under Section 482 No. 6975 of 2013 so as to contend that even otherwise, merely on issuance of the notice and seeking report from the District Probation Officer would not entail a cause of action to approach this Court, particularly when even if any such orders are passed, then the same can be altered under Section 25 of the Act itself. 5. Having heard the arguments so sought to be advanced, this Court is of the opinion that once thre has been no orders passed under Chapter IV of the Act, then in the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the allegations are relatable to the fact that there is no shared household cannot be gone into in absence of materials in this regard. 6. On a pointed query raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether any orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act, the answer is in negative. 7. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the factual backdrop that only notices have been issued and report has been sought from the District Probation Officer, thus this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere at this stage, particularly, when the entire materials are not before this Court and whatever arguments have been sought to be raised, they are the defences, which can very well be taken once the order is passed, while questioning the same either in appeal or taking recourse to other remedy available under law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad