HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35336 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna (AOR No.A/R0138/2012) holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the respondent Nos. 3. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the order dated 21.4.2025 passed by trial court in Complaint Case No.571/2023, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, (Priyanka Tiwari Vs. Himanshu Pandey and others) as well as order dated 2.9.2025 passed by revisional court in Criminal Revision No.243 of 2025. 4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act came to be preferred on 16.9.2023 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant and non- applicants who are five in number, however, on 21.4.2025 bailable warrants came to be issued. Questioning the same a Criminal Revision No.243 of 2025 came to be preferred which was admitted on 6.5.2025, however, the same came to be dismissed on 2.9.2025 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1, Prayagraj, Himanshu Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. Questioning both the order the applicant came to be preferred the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Himanshu Pandey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) present application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that first of all bailable warrants could not have been issued against the applicant particularly when the proceedings under D.V. Act are quasi criminal proceedings which do not have any penal consequences except where there is a violation of or breach of the protection order. He has further submitted that challenging the order dated 21.4.2025 issued bailable warrant, the applicant preferred a criminal revision which has been dismissed however the revisional court has on one hand come to the conclusion that the order of issuance of bailable warrant is purely interlocutory order thus, revision would not be maintainable however, on the other hand it seeks to proceed further while confirming the order while also observing that the trial court had issued bailable warrant only to secure the presence of the revisionist/opposite party no.2 in pending matter. He has also submitted that once the revision was not maintainable then any observations were totally uncalled for. He has thus submitted that already the said aspect of the matter has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Transfer Petition (Crl.) 856 of 2024, Alisha Berry Vs. Neelam Berry decided on 3.1.2025 and the judgement in Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2016, Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs.Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & another. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is no shy to contest the said proceedings but bailable warrant ought not to have issued. 8. Learned AGA could not dispute the said legal preposition. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be filing an application seeking recall of the bailable warrant. 10. Considering the submissions so made across the bar and respectfully prevail the judgment in Alisha Berry (supra) and Kunapareddy @ Nookala (supra) the Court without issuing notices to the opposite party no.2 proceeding to dispose of the application for requiring the applicant to file application for recalling of the bailable warrant by taking aid of the judgment in Alisha Berry (supra) and Kunapareddy @ Nookala NA528 No. 35336 of 2025 2 (supra). The court below shall decide the application within a period of three weeks. 11. Till the application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Complaint Case No.571/2023, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, (Priyanka Tiwari Vs. Himanshu Pandey and others) as well as order dated 2.9.2025 passed by revisional court in Criminal Revision No.243 of 2025. 12. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. September 15, 2025 piyush NA528 No. 35336 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad