HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28081 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings Case No.3348 of 2024 (Priya Chaubey Vs. Dhruw Tiwari and others), under section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 4. The case of the applicants is that a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came to be filed by the opposite party No. 2 on 06.12.2024 against the applicants who happened to be the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Mausia sasur and Mausia Saas with an allegation that on 04.05.2022, the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 1 and at the time of the marriage Rs.1,11,000/- was offered as gift in cash and a motorcycle and the total expenditure of marriage was Rs. 5,00,000/- and with the wedlock of the opposite party no. 2 with applicant no. 1, a baby was born. On account of the demand raised by the applicants to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to hurling of abuses and assaulted and she was mentally and socially harassed. When the opposite party no. 2 apprised the said act of the applicants to her parents then the applicants became annoyed and they started assaulting and beating on account of the regular assault and domestic violence so sought to be extended, the parents of the opposite party no. 2 along with some well-wishers came to the matrimonial house of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Damodar Singh, Ram Kishun Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dhruw Tiwari And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) opposite party no. 2 and pleaded that their financial conditions is not sound so as to fulfill their demand. Things remain normal for a short span of time and thereafter post lapsation of a certain week, again demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made and it was threatened, in case, the said demand was not fulfilled then the opposite party no. 2 would be done to death. It is also alleged that the husband of the opposite party no. 2 with applicant no. 1 used to be intoxicating state and hurling abuses and assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and in the month of August, 2023 when the opposite party no. 2 again conceived then the applicants had thrown out the opposite party no. 2, post assault and she came to her maternal house where she is living, a baby was born and despite information being given to the applicants, he did not come less to say about payment of incurring of expenditure in the hospital. Allegation is also to the extent that the Stree-dhan to the tune of Rs.3,00,000 is also with the applicants. Thereafter post filing of the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the noticed came to be issued. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint so lodged by the opposite party no. 2 is neither maintainable nor there is any iota of evidence to show that the applicants have subjected the opposite party no. 2 to domestic violence and the entire allegations are false and incorrect, nothing but bundle of lies. Submission is that the applicants had at no point of time demand any additional dowry and whatever has been alleged is an incorrect statements and it is the opposite party no. 2, living in her maternal house since 20.09.2023 and on 18.11.2024 a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 908 of 2024 came to be preferred in which a direction was issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure the petitioner nos.2 and 3, corpuses along with the respondent no. 4 before the Court which became a fact for lodging of the criminal proceedings as on 06.12.2024, the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act impugned in the present application as well as the proceedings under Section 144 BNSS (old 125 Cr.P.C.) came to be lodged. Submission is that the opposite party no. 2 is taking recourse to variety of proceedings under different statute just in order to harass the applicants. According to the learned counsel for the applicants though the applicant nos. 1 to 3 are husband, father-in-law and mother-in- law but with regard to the applicant nos. 4 and 5, they are Mausia Sasur and Mausia Saas and in total there is no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act or shared shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act and NA528 No. 28081 of 2025 2 opposite party no. 2 is not an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and further the applicants cannot be termed to be respondents under Section 2(r) of the Act. Only bald and omnibus allegations have been levelled. He submits that the complaint itself is not maintainable and thus there is no question of issuing of the notice and thus the impugned proceedings be quashed. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that this Court may not interfere at this stage, particularly, when only notices have been issued and no orders have been passed and it is for the applicants to contest the said proceedings. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 8. Apparently, a complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 wife against the applicants who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Mausia Sasur and Mausia Saas. Allegation in the complaint is regarding subjection to domestic violence at the hand of the applicants. Once there are allegations of domestic violence in the complaint then prima facie on the basis of the allegations, it can be inferred that applicants are an aggrieved person under section 2(a) of the Act and since allegations are against the applicants then they come within the definition of respondents under section 2(r) of the Act. As regards, domestic relationship is concerned, the same stands defined under Section 2(f) which means a relationship between two persons who live or lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family and Section 2(s) of the Act deals with shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent. Thus the words employed who live or have at any point of time lived in section 2(f) of the Act and where the person aggrieved lived or at any stage lived in domestic relationship make it explicitly clear that it is not a hard and fast rule that on the date of the lodging of the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act of 2005, there should be a shared household or domestic relationship as the words which are significant at any point of time. NA528 No. 28081 of 2025 3 Thus, merely because as per the complaint and the allegations of the applicants, the opposite party no. 2 was living in her maternal house since 20.09.2023 and on the date of the lodging of the complaint on 06.12.2024, there was no share household or domestic relationship would not be relevant. Moreover the allegations are regarding demand of dowry and non- fulfillment subjection to domestic violence against the applicants. 9. As regards, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that multiple proceedings are being lodged that under Section 144 BNSS being annoyed with the filing of the Habeas Corpus writ petition by the applicants is not required to be delved into at this stage, particularly, it is a matter of defence which can be taken when the proceedings are being allowed to continue. Moreover, this Court at the stage of challenge being raised to the complaint and the issuing of the notice is not required to further delve into the merits of the allegations as they are subject matter of the proceedings as what would be required at this stage, would be that whether based on the allegations in the complaint, the proceedings are liable to be continued or they are frivolous. The allegations and the counter allegations between the parties are to be thrashed out once the proceedings commences. 10. The extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. in the matter of the challenge raised to the complaint under Domestic Violence Act came up for consideration in Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saurav Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 decided on 19.05.2025, the following was observed: "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 NA528 No. 28081 of 2025 4 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." 1. As only notices have been issued and no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act an d the nature of the allegations do not depict that the allegations prima facie are frivolous thus looking into the fact that in case orders are passed which according to the learned counsel for the applicants are prejudicial to the interest then they can be challenged by way of appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by proceedings under Section 25 of the Act. 12. Thus, this Court does not find the present case as an exceptional warranting interference, accordingly, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of. 13. Leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings on merit taking all legal and factual grounds while contesting the application and, in case, such grounds are taken then this court has no reason to disbelieve then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. September 12, 2025 A. Prajapati NA528 No. 28081 of 2025 5 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad