CRL.M.C. 7355/2026 $~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010471462026 + CRL.M.C. 7355/2026 & CRL.M.A. 30741/2026, CRL.M.A. 30742/2026 JAGJEET SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Anuradha Mitra, Adv. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya and Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred as the ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, the “DV Act”), being Complaint Case No. 1745/2024 titled “Sukhpreet Kaur v. Jaswinder Singh & Ors.”, pending before the learned JMFC, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. The petitioners also seek quashing of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Petitioner No.1, Jagjeet Singh, is the father-in-law of respondent No.2, while petitioner No.2, Dr. Mandeep Singh, is her brother-in-law. Respondent This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:19:43 CRL.M.C. 7355/2026 No.2, Sukhpreet Kaur, is the wife of Dr. Jaswinder Singh, son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2. The marriage between respondent No.2 and Dr. Jaswinder Singh was solemnised on 03.10.2011. Two children were born from the said wedlock. 4. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 and her husband had, at different points of time, resided at Delhi, Ludhiana and Patna, whereas the petitioners were residing separately at Patna. It is contended that respondent No.2 was not residing with the petitioners in a regular or continuous domestic arrangement and that therefore, no domestic relationship or shared household existed between the parties. According to the petitioners, the only occasion when respondent No.2 stayed at their residence was for approximately 4-6 days in the year 2014. 5. The petitioners have further pleaded that the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act and the Domestic Incident Report do not disclose any specific incident of domestic violence attributable to either of them. It is also contended that the allegations are vague and omnibus and that the petitioners have been impleaded merely on account of their relationship with the husband of respondent No.2. 6. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 20.05.2026, recorded that the detailed report submitted by the Protection Officer reflected that the complainant had resided with her brother-in-law and other in-laws at 101, Nishant Park View Apartment, Patna, from July 2014 to February 2015. 7. After perusing the application under Section 12 of the DV Act, the accompanying documents and the Domestic Incident Report, the learned Trial Court recorded its satisfaction that prima facie allegations of domestic violence had been made against respondent No.2, the father-in-law, and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:19:43 CRL.M.C. 7355/2026 respondent No.3, the brother-in-law, and accordingly issued notice to them. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present proceedings deserve to be quashed insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, as the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) does not disclose any specific act of domestic violence attributable to either of them. 9. Learned counsel submits that the Domestic Incident Report (“DIR”) does not contain any specific allegation against the present petitioners. It is argued that the petitioners were nevertheless subsequently summoned by the learned Trial Court, although the material initially placed before the Court did not disclose any individualised act of domestic violence on their part. The petitioners therefore contend that the subsequent proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioners were residing at Patna, Bihar, separately from respondent No.2, whereas respondent No.2 and her husband were residing at different places during the relevant period. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 herself had referred to separate addresses of the parties and that the petitioners were not part of her regular matrimonial household. 11. Learned counsel further submits that there was no regular or continuous shared domestic life between respondent No.2 and the petitioners. According to the petitioners, even when respondent No.2 was in Patna, she was residing separately with her husband and child and not at the residence of the present petitioners. It is submitted that the only occasion relied upon by the petitioners when respondent No.2 stayed at their residence was for approximately 4-6 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:19:43 CRL.M.C. 7355/2026 days in the year 2014, which, according to them, was temporary and occasional. 12. Learned counsel submits that, in terms of Sections 2(f) and 2(s) of the DV Act, the existence of a domestic relationship and a shared household assumes significance and, in the present case, the petitioners did not reside with respondent No.2 in the same household. It is therefore argued that the statutory foundation for proceeding against the petitioners is itself absent. 13. It is next submitted that the allegations in the complaint are vague, general and omnibus. According to learned counsel, expressions such as “the respondents”, “Respondent Nos.2 to 4” and “in connivance with each other” have been used without specifying the individual acts, dates, places or circumstances attributable to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 14. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent events and conduct of the parties are also relevant. Reference is made to the material placed on record showing continued interaction between respondent No.2 and the petitioners, including travel and family functions, which, according to the petitioners, is inconsistent with the allegation of continuous harassment by the petitioners. The petitioners particularly rely upon their participation in family occasions and the Gangtok trip in 2024. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 15. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the present petition proceeds on an incorrect reading of the complaint and the Domestic Incident Report. It is submitted that the complaint does contain allegations against the present petitioners and, therefore, it cannot be contended that they have been implicated merely because of their relationship with the husband of respondent No.2. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:19:43 CRL.M.C. 7355/2026 16. It is further submitted that the complaint has to be read as a whole and not by isolating individual paragraphs. Learned counsel submits that the allegations made against the present petitioners are part of the overall narrative of domestic violence pleaded by respondent No.2 and that the absence of a separate heading or paragraph for each respondent cannot, at this stage, be treated as absence of an allegation altogether. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 17. This Court has considered the submissions advanced and perused the material placed on record. 18. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be imperative to record the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC. The scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. It is trite law that such inherent power is to be exercised sparingly and not upon a re-appreciation of materials which have already been considered by the Trial Court. Reference can be made in the regard to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2020) 17 SCC 595 and Bharti Anand v. Sushant Anand & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1191.) 19. The petitioners primarily contend that there are no specific allegations against them and that they have been arrayed only on account of their relationship with respondent No.2. The said submission, however, does not find support from the complaint. The complaint contains allegations specifically referring to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in relation to harassment, taunting and instigation, and also attributes a role to them in the acts complained of by respondent No.2. Thus, this is not a case where the present This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:19:43 CRL.M.C. 7355/2026 petitioners have merely been named as relatives without any allegation whatsoever. 20. The distinction between generalised allegations against family members and allegations which disclose an individual role has been emphasised by the Supreme Court in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263. The Supreme Court cautioned that family members ought not to be subjected to criminal proceedings on the basis of sweeping allegations and observed that specific acts, coupled with prima facie material indicating involvement are required. 21. In the present case, on the contrary, the learned Trial Court, after considering the complaint, the accompanying documents and the Domestic Incident Report, recorded that the report submitted by the Protection Officer reflected that respondent No.2 had resided with her brother-in-law and other in-laws at 101, Nishant Park View Apartment, Patna, from July 2014 to February 2015. The learned Trial Court thereafter recorded a prima facie satisfaction regarding the allegations of domestic violence against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and proceeded to summon them. 22. The petitioners' contention that they were residing separately and that no shared household ever existed between the parties, therefore, cannot be accepted as an undisputed fact at this stage. There is material from the Protection Officer indicating a period of residence of respondent No.2 with the petitioners. Whether the said period of residence constitutes a “domestic relationship” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act and the precise nature and duration of such residence are matters which cannot be finally determined merely on the basis of the competing versions of the parties in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:19:43 CRL.M.C. 7355/2026 23. The other circumstances relied upon by the petitioners, including the reference to “Respondent Nos.5 & 6” in the complaint, the residence of respondent No.4 at Ludhiana, and the subsequent cordial interactions between the parties, may constitute matters for consideration before the learned Trial Court. These circumstances, by themselves, do not erase the specific allegations already contained in the complaint or the material indicating past co-residence. 24. Similarly, the absence of a separate police complaint does not render an application under Section 12 of the DV Act non-maintainable. The present proceedings are before the learned Magistrate under the statutory scheme of the DV Act, and the question before this Court is whether the material on record warrants exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing. 25. At this stage, this Court is not required to determine whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners are ultimately proved. The limited question is whether the proceedings are so devoid of prima facie material as to warrant interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. In view of the specific allegations in the complaint and the material recorded by the learned Trial Court concerning the parties past co-residence, such a case is not made out. 26. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed, along with the pending applications, if any. 27. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/b/P This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:19:43