HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20122 of 2026 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vikrant Rana, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandra Bir Singh, learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Present application has been filed to quash the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Case No.23/2025 (Ritu Agrawal Vs. Amit Gupta& others) by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Aligarh and the entire consequential proceedings of Case No. 23 of 2025 (Ritu Agrawal Vs. Amit Gupta & others) under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Aligarh. 3. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no. 2 is husband and applicants no. 1 and 3 to 5 are in-laws of opposite party no. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the marriage between Applicant No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized on 27.04.2021 as per Hindu Rites and sufficient dowry was given by the father of the opposite party no. 2. After marriage on account of some domestic dispute, the opposite party no.2 was ousted from the matrimonial house. The applicant no.2/husband lodged F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.568 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against the wife, opposite party no.2 wherein charge sheet has been submitted against the opposite party no. 2 and her friend and learned Magistrate took cognizance on 07.03.2025. It is next submitted that opposite party no. 2 challenged the said order by filing application under Section 482 No. 9164 of 2025 before the Hon. High Court, Lucknow Bench and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 stayed the proceedings of the case and directed for personal appearance of both the parties. Thereafter on 15.12.2025, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Lucknow Bench. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Bir Singh, Prem Nath Tyagi, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Counsel for the applicant further submits that as a counter-blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by the husband/applicant no. 2, the opposite Party No. 2 initially lodged an FIR as Case Crime No.417 of 2024 under Sections 352, 351(2), 316(2)m 115(2) 89 and 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act the BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act at Aligarh, in which the police, after investigation, found no evidence and submitted a Final Report (F.R. No. 35 of 2025). Now the opposite Party No. 2 has instituted the present complaint with malicious intention under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 22 of D.V. Act, only to harass the applicant no. 2/husband and other family members. The notices issued against the applicants under Section 12, 18, 19 and 22 of D.V. Act is illegal, arbitrary and abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the case. 6. The Hon. Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No.2688 of 2025 in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158 has held thus: "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. 36. We must also note here that against an order passed by a learned Magistrate, there is an appeal provided under Section 29 to the Court of Session. In contrast, generally, there is no remedy of appeal available against an order taking cognizance of an offence or an order issuing process. This is another reason why the High Court should exercise caution when exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005. ........................ 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". NA528 No. 20122 of 2026 2 7. Upon consideration of the submission and perusal of the record, it is evident that the proceedings under Section 12, 18, 19 and 22 of the D.V.Act are quasi civil and criminal in nature, wherein only notice is required to be issued. In present case, learned Magistrate has issued notice to the applicants against which applicant has filed present application. It was argued by counsel for the applicant that learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as opposite party no. 2 do not reside in District Aligarh, this submission cannot be accepted at this stage. The contents of complaint and address shown therein reveal that opposite party no.2 is resident of Aligarh. Moreover, the opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. as Case Crime No.417 of 2024, in district Aligarh. The argument raised by counsel that opposite party no. 2 with malice intention has lodged complaint in District Aligarh has no force. The applicants have an efficacious alternative remedy of filing objection before the competent court. In view of the Apex Court judgement cited above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings challenged herein. 8. However, if the applicants file objection/counter affidavit before the concerned court within a period of two months, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 9. The application is disposed of. May 15, 2026 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 20122 of 2026 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad