2026:CGHC:21123-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1089 of 2022 Rohitashva Chandra Dohre S/o Late Arjun Lal Dohre Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Harigujar Mahal Pila Mahal, Rajapara Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mention Address In The Order Sheet As Above Ward No. 8, Harigujar Mahal Pila Mahal, Rajapara, Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa) R/o Plot No. 10, Shanti Vihar Colony, Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Geetarana Singh W/o Raja Surendar Bahadur Singh Aged About 75 Years R/o Pila Mahal, Rajapara, Sakti, Tahsil - Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Raja Surendar Bahadur Singh S/o Late Jivendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 75 Years 3 - Dharmendra Kumar Singh Firmly Known As Adopted Son Of Raja Bahadur Singh Aged About 38 Years (Wrongly Mention As S/o Dhaneshwar Singh Sidar, In The Order Sheet) 4 - Kaliram Tarak S/o Narottam Tarak Aged About 59 Years Respondents- 2 to 4 are R/o Pila Mahal , Raja Para, Sakti, Tahsil - Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent-1 : None appears though served --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.05.2026 Heard Shri Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.08 14:49:42 +0530 Crr 1089 of 2022 2 1. Applicant has filed the present revision with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the revision petition may be allowed and the orders impugned passed by the courts below may be set aside and the proceedings/prosecution against the present applicant may be dropped in the Case No.Cr MJC-06/2021 title as Smt Geeta Rana Singh Vs Raja Surendar Bahadur Singh & others, pending before the Lt Court of JMFC Sakti, District-Janjgir- Champa, in the interest of justice.” 2. Present is a revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, in CRA-32 of 2021, whereby the said appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed. The appeal arose out of the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Sakti in Cr.MJC-06 of 2021. 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant is Private Secretary to respondent-2, Raja Surendar Bahadur Singh, who belongs to the Royal family of Sakti. Respondent-1, Smt Geetarana Singh, w/o Raja Surendar Bahadur Singh is prosecuting a complaint case filed under Sections 12 r/w 18 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘DV Act’) before the JMFC Sakti against the applicant and respondents-2 to 4. In the complaint made by the complainant/ respondent-1 before the learned trial Court, it is alleged that she was subjected to harassment and domestic violence by the non-applicants. On 02.05.2021, non-applicants stopped electricity and water supply of Crr 1089 of 2022 3 the portion of the complainant in which she is residing, and locked the way to come down stairs from the 1st floor. She made police complaint, and also reported to the higher authorities. The complaint was filed on 11.05.2021 and registered on 25.05.2021 and notices were issued to the non-applicants, including the present applicant. Applicant is nowhere family member of the complainant. Therefore, he challenged the impugned proceeding. Applicant made preliminary objections before the learned trial Court raising his grievance that he is not at all family member of the complainant and the proceeding cannot be continued against him. The preliminary objections raised by him have been rejected by the learned trial Court on 22.07.2021. The said order dated 22.07.2021 was challenged by the applicant before the learned trial court by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, which has also been dismissed vide order 08.08.2022, and the same is under challenge in the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is nowhere related to the complainant, or to other non-applicants. Proceedings under the DV Act can be prosecuted only against the family members of the complainant, yet the complainant included the present applicant also in her complaint. Learned trial Court has considered that the present applicant is also residing with other non-applicants, therefore, the proceeding can be continued also against him, but the allegation against the present applicant is to be examined after leading evidence of the parties. He would further submit that from the definition made under Crr 1089 of 2022 4 Section 2(f) of the DV Act defines the domestic relationship and the present applicant does not come under the said definition of domestic relationship. Therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for offence of DV Act, if any, and the proceeding against the applicant is liable to be quashed. 5. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent-1 to defend her case. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. From the pleadings made in the present revision and the documents annexed with it, and further from the complaint made by the complainant before the learned trial Court, it transpires that present applicant does not belong to the family of complainant, and he is only Private Secretary to Raja Surendra Bahadur Singh, respondent-2. 8. Section 2(f) of the DV Act defines the domestic relationship, which reads as under: (f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, 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; 9. The domestic violence is defined under Section 2(g) of the DV Act, which reads as under: (g) "domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3; Crr 1089 of 2022 5 10. Section 3 of the DV Act provided the definition of domestic violence, which reads as under: 3. Definition of domestic violence.—For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it— (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force; (ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman; (iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes— Crr 1089 of 2022 6 (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested; (iv) “economic abuse” includes— (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance; (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. Explanation II.—For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. Crr 1089 of 2022 7 11. The relevant consideration in the present revision is the domestic relationship which defined in Section 2(f) of the DV Act and the applicant being a Private Secretary of respondent-2, he does not come under the definition of domestic relationship with the complainant. He cannot be considered to be having domestic relationship with the complainant. 12. Learned trial Court has passed its order on 22.07.2021 rejecting the objection of the applicant holding that it is a matter of evidence as to whether the applicant comes under the definition of domestic relationship or not. When it is not specifically disputed that the present applicant is working as Private Secretary to respondent-2, he definitely does not come under the definition of domestic relationship and if it is so, proceeding under the DV Act cannot be continued against him. There may be some allegations against other non-applicants, and even against the present applicant but he cannot be prosecuted under the DV Act when he is not in domestic relationship of the complainant, respondent-1. 13. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the objection raised by the applicant and continued the proceedings under the DV Act against the applicant. 14. Accordingly, present revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, in CRA-32 of 2021; order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the learned trial Court in Cr.MJC-6 of 2021 are set Crr 1089 of 2022 8 aside ; and the proceedings against the applicant pending in Cr.MJC-06 of 2021 before the learned JMFC Sakti against the applicant- Rohitashva Chandra Dohre S/o Late Arjun Lal Dohre are hereby quashed. 15. However, proceedings pending against other non-applicants in Cr.MJC-06 of 2021 shall continue. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma