1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1828 of 2025 1 - Shri Rajesh Tiwari S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Tiwari Aged About 58 Years R/o Flat No. 401, Renuka Apartment, In Front Of Datta Apartment , Narendra Nagar Extension Nagpur (M.H.) 2 - Smt. Khushi Tiwari W/o Shubham Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o 190-1991 Sucasa Complex, Behind Datta Mandir Road Wakad, Hinjewadi Mulshi Pune (M.H.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Pooja Chaturvedi W/o Shri Sanket Tiwari Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 63, Rawatpura Nagar, Mathpurena Colony, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2. : : Mr. Sanjeev K. Pandey, Dy. A.G. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Ashish Tiwari, , Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09.10.2025 1. The present Cr. M.P. has been filed under Section 528 of B. N. S. S. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.12.10 18:39:45 +0530 2 filed by the non-applicants No. 2 and 3 for quashing of the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2/ complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur under Section 12 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “the Act, 2005”). 2. The present petitioners are father in law and sister in law of the complainant/ Respondent No. 2. The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the non-applicant No. 1 Sanket Tiwari on 01.07.2021 at Raipur. After a few days of their marriage, some differences occurred between them, however, they resided together with ordinary wear and tear of married life. In the month of February, 2023, the non-applicant No. 1/ husband of the complainant had gone to Australia and then the complainant had also get her services transferred to Australia, there also the quarrel took place between them and ultimately, he left her on 15.12.2023 and sent her back to Banglore, India. A family meeting was convened on 04.03.2024 at Nagpur between the families of both the parties, however, no decision could be taken in the said meeting. In the May, 2024, it is alleged that the non-applicant No. 1/ husband demanded Rs. 20-30 lakhs to purchase a plot at Pune, which was denied by the complainant and the dispute again arose between them. The husband of the complainant tried to re-marry and when he chatting with Jeevansathi.com and searching for profile of bride, the complainant considered herself to be helpless and she filed an application under Section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005. It is pleaded in the complaint that the yearly income of the non-applicant No. 1/ husband is Rs. 81 lakhs and despite that he is not taking care of his wife/ complainant, she is suffering from domestic violence committed by the non-applicant No. 1/ husband and 3 therefore, for livelihood of the complainant, an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs should be awarded in her favour and against the non-applicant No. 1. He also claimed Rs. 2 lakh towards medical expenses, Rs. 50 lakhs towards one time maintenance and Rs. 1,35,000/- towards loss incurred when she forcefully left Australia and refund to her employer at Australia and also claimed damages of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 22 of the Act of 2005. She also claimed Rs. 20,000/- per month as rent of residential house as the complainant has no residential accommodation for herself, she also claimed her “Stridhan/ ornaments” as per the list annexed with the complaint. 3. Learned trial Court has called report from women and child development department and after receiving a report, registered the complaint case and issued notices to the non-applicants. On 15.05.2025, the non-applicants made their appearance in the proceeding through their counsel and then the non-applicants No. 2 and 3 which are the present petitioners, have filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that a general and omnibus allegation have been levelled against the petitions in the complaint. The petitioner No. 1 is the father in law and petitioner No. 2 is the sister in law of the complainant and only to create pressure upon the non-applicant No. 1/ husband, they have been made an non-applicants in the present complaint case. After a few days of marriage, the non-applicant No. 1 Sanket Tiwari and Respondent No. 2 started residing separately at Nagpur and have never resided with the present petitioners. It is a dispute between the husband and wife and the petitioners have no where concerned with 4 their family affairs. The house of the petitioners does not come under the definition of shared household for the purposes of Section 17(1) of the Act, 2025. The shared household is only mean that the husband belonging or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is the member, however, in the present case, non-applicant No. 1/ husband is not the member of joint family and residing separately from the petitioners. The petitioner’s house is not shared household. The petitioners have tried their level best for reconciliation between the husband and wife but they could not succeed. While considering the case, prima facie, the learned trial Court ought to have considered that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners and the complaint case should not be registered against them. It is a general tendency to implicate all the family members only to create pressure upon the husband and to satisfy the ego of the complainant. The petitioner No. 2 is a married sister of the non-applicant No. 1/ husband and residing at Pune along with her husband and she too have no nexus with the allegations alleged in the case. Therefore, for want of sufficient material against the petitioners, the complaint case cannot be registered against them and the order dated 20.02.2025 is liable to be quashed with respect to registration of the complaint case against the petitioners and the complainant against them may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 would supported the case of the complainant and submitted that there are sufficient prima facie material against the petitioners in the complaint to register the complaint and to proceed with the trial of the case. The provisions under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a welfare 5 legislation specifically enacted to provide justice to woman suffering from domestic violence and to prevent acts of such violence. There was a demand of Rs. 11000/- for petitioner No. 2 and also the allegation against her that after some time of marriage, she came to the matrimonial house of the complainant and instigating the husband of the complainant against her. There are other allegations against the petitioner No. 2, so far as, the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, there are allegation against him of the jwellery of the complainant have been kept in the Bank locker of petitioner No. 1 which attract the provisions of domestic violence act. It is also alleged that the Jwellery items of the complainant have forcely been taken from her and kept in bank locker of the petitioner No. 1, therefore, at this stage, there is sufficient material against the petitioners and they are not entitled for any relief. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ State, would submit that on complaint being made, complaint case has been registered by the learned trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra & anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra {2006 (13)SCALE652} has interpreted the definition of shared household for the purpose of Section 17 (1) of the Act, 2005, wherein it is stated that as per Section 17 (1) of the Act, 2005 wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. 6 9. From perusal of the petition and documents appended with it, it transpires that the petitioners No.1 & 2 are residing at Nagpur and Pune and there is no proof of the domestic relation that they lived in a shared household with the complainant/respondent No.2. There is no categorical averments in the complaint from which it can be inferred that the petitioners are residing with the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2 and they are in any part of the shared household. Only the omnibus allegations have been made. The perusal of the provisions make it clear that the domestic relationship in respect of an aggrieved person means if the aggrieved person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household. This living together can either be before the petition is filed or any subsequent time. There is no averments of the fact that it is a joint family also and the perusal of the complaint itself shows that the petitioners are resident of different place and were not living in joint household. Consequently, the general presumption cannot be applied while summons are issued to a person to appear before the Court as an accused. The entire allegations of the complaint are vague as against these petitioners and do not make out any case prima facie to take cognizance under the Act of 2005. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above stated judgment, the further criminal proceedings initiated by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG) in (Cr) M.J.C. No. 351/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from 7 Domestic Violence Act so far as it relates to present petitioners Rajesh Tiwari and Smt. Khushi Tiwari are hereby quashed. 11. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika