Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86854 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18367 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Pratishtha Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Prasoon Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant 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 proceedings of Case No. 725 of 2023 (Smt. Suneeta Chaudhary Vs. Smt. Pratishtha Singh), U/Ss 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of D. V. Act 2005, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 6th, Meerut. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of D. V. Act 2005 on 10.08.2023 against the applicant who happens to be the daughter-in-law of O.P. No.2, marriage whereof was solemnized on 07.12.2013 with the son of O.P. No.2. It is alleged that huge amount of offerings at the time of marriage were exchanged between the parties. However, O.P. No.2 did not want a child, but when the child was born, then sadness penetrated in the mind of the applicant and she did not take care of the child as rather to the contrary, the child was taken care of by O.P. No.2 and her son, who happens to be the husband. Allegations have also been leveled that utterances used to be made in such a manner so as to commit a domestic violence while terming the O.P. No.2 to be old and in depleted condition. Even sarcastic comments were also being made by O.P. No.2 and on 10.10.2021, the applicant had called her uncle and thereafter packed the valuables in a four-wheeler and since the same could not be accommodated in the said vehicle, then another four- wheeler was called. 4. In nutshell, the allegations are with respect to extension of mental injuries by verbal and emotional abuse. Post lodging of the said complaint, notices had been issued to the applicant herein. 5. Questioning the entire proceedings, the present application has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned complaint so sought to be lodged by O.P. No.2 is nothing but the grossest misuse of process of law, particularly in the background of the fact that already a complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of D. V. Act 2005 was lodged by the applicant against the O.P. No.2, husband, and father-in-law on 13.04.2022, which was registered as Complaint Case No.32 of 2022, in which a reply was also submitted by O.P. No.2, while contesting the said case on 12.10.2022, however, in the said reply there is no allegation worth consideration or even a single word so as to show that any domestic violence was either extended or suffered by O.P. No.2. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that even proceeding of divorce has been filed by the husband of the applicant. Thus the submission is that it is the applicant, who has been subjected to domestic violence and not the O.P. no.2. 7. Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer, while countering the submissions made by applicant submits that at the stage when present proceedings have been lodged by the applicant before this Court only notices have been issued and whatever arguments are being sought to be raised, though an very well be taken in the proceeding while filing a reply in that regard. He submits that even appropriate remedies are available in case orders are passed under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act. 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 proceeding is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. 10. Apparently, O.P. No.2 has lodged a complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of D. V. Act 2005 on 10.08.2023 alleging that she has been subjected to domestic violence. However, according to the applicant, the said complaint is nothing but a counter-blast and a retaliation. As prior to it on 13.04.2022, a complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 of D. V. Act 2005 was preferred by the applicant against O.P. No.2 and other family members, in which a reply and objections has been preferred by O.P. No.2 on 12.10.2022. Contention is that there is no recital or detail given of any domestic violence subjected to the O.P. No.2 at the end of the applicant. Though the said argument appears to be attractive at the first blush, but it is not liable to be accepted for the simple reason that this Court at this juncture in the present proceeding is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations as they are to be adjudged when the proceedings continue which would culminate into an order. It would be premature and inappropriate exercise of this Court to throttle the proceedings particularly when the truth would come to surface, once the proceedings continue. The contention so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that complaint lodged by O.P. No.2 is a retaliation and a counter-blast containing incorrect allegations and they are a bundle of lies with huge contradictions, the same are subject matter of proceedings. The Hon'ble Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No.2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025 confronted with the issue of maintainability of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/528 of BNSS and the extension of intervention in the said proceedings had 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." 11. Considering the over all fact situation, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for invoking inherent jurisdiction. However, the application stands disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds, which are permissible and available under law and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided in correct perspective. 12. In case, any order is passed, which according to the applicant is against her, then it is always open to her to avail the remedy available/permissible under law under this Act. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad