Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90907 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17868 of 2025 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, FTC-II Farrukhabad in Domestic Violence Case No. 1750 of 2023 (new case no. 1354 of 2023) (Vineeta Katiyar vs. Pradeep Kumar and Ors) U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. 3. The case of the applicant is that the opposite party no.2 who happens to be the wife of the applicant had lodged proceedings U/s 12 of the D.V. Act against the applicant claiming relief U/s 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 etc, wherein in para-8 it was asserted that the opposite party no.2 was not working anywhere and she was not gainfully employed. According to the counsel for the applicant on 28.06.2023 notices were issued to the opposite parties, one of them is the applicant. However, when the applicant came to know that there was virtual concealment of the fact that she is a government teacher and an application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 of BNSS was preferred. Thereafter, an amendment application came to be preferred for amending the paragraph no.8 of the complaint U/s 12 of D.V. Act which came to be allowed on 01.04.2025. Questioning the order dated 01.04.2025 the applicant has preferred the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party no.2 had concealed the vital facts that she was gainfully employed and getting a handsome salary and just in order to somewhat extract money as a blackmail the proceedings under D.V. Act has been preferred. The submissions is that once the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 of BNSS has been preferred then in these circumstances it was not open for the court below to have allowed the amendment as it would virtually change the nature of the case itself and scope of the relief claimed. 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, it is always open for the opposite party no.2 to seek amendment and the proceedings U/s 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 of BNSS are separate and distinct and they would continue on its own strength. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 7. Apparently the proceedings U/s 12 of D.V. Act was instituted by opposite party no.2 wherein in para-8 she has disclosed that she was not gainfully employed, however, on being notice the applicant submitted an application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 of BNSS for initiation of the proceedings for concealing the vital facts and, thereafter, as apparent from the record, the opposite party no.2 got the amendment application preferred which came to be allowed. 8. In the opinion of the court, the proceedings U/s 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 of BNSS if it is maintainable is to be decided on its own strength. Thus, the present application is being disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to contest the matter on merits and also to press the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 of BNSS and this Court has no reasons to believe that the same should be given at a logical end. 9. Accordingly, the present application is rejected. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad