Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8511 (UTT)

Prasanna Badini v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-01-06

Ashish Naithani

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ashish Naithani, J. This criminal revision has been preferred by the Revisionists under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the judgment and order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District UdhamSingh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present Revisionists against the summoning order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 260 of 2024 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, came to be dismissed. By the impugned orders, the learned courts below have upheld the issuance of notice against the Revisionists, who are the aged parents-in-law and sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the continuation of the proceedings, the Revisionists have approached this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. 2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that Respondent No. 2 was married to the son of Revisionist Nos. 1 and 2. From the said wedlock, no biological child was born and, as claimed by Respondent No. 2, a girl child, Respondent No. 3, was adopted in the year 2018. The husband of Respondent No. 2 expired in the year 2019. It is the case of the Revisionists that Respondent No. 2 had been residing separately from the Revisionists since the year 2010 and, after the death of her husband, permanently severed her ties with the shared household. 3. After a considerable lapse of time, Respondent No. 2 instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, seeking reliefs against the present Revisionists. Upon presentation of the said application, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 05.06.2024, issued summons to the Revisionists. 4. Challenging the said summoning order, the Revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act. The learned Appellate Court, by judgment dated 04.07.2025, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the summoning order, holding that no illegality or infirmity was found in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. 4. Challenging the said summoning order, the Revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act. The learned Appellate Court, by judgment dated 04.07.2025, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the summoning order, holding that no illegality or infirmity was found in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. It is against the aforesaid appellate judgment and the consequential continuation of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act that the present criminal revision has been filed, primarily contending that the proceedings are an abuse of process of law, instituted after inordinate delay, in the absence of a subsisting domestic relationship, and with an oblique motive to assert claims over property and pension of the aged Revisionists. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Revisionists submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court suffers from non-application of mind and has failed to consider the basic requirement of a subsisting domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was contended that Respondent No. 2 had been residing separately from the Revisionists since the year 2010 and that, after the death of her husband in 2019, no shared household or domestic relationship survived so as to invoke proceedings under Section 12 of the Act. 8. It was further submitted that the complaint has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay, as no allegation of domestic violence was ever raised either during the lifetime of the husband or immediately thereafter. 9. According to the Revisionists, the application is vague and bereft of material particulars, as no specific incidents, dates, or acts of domestic violence have been disclosed to justify issuance of summons. 10. Learned counsel also argued that the proceedings are a misuse of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, having been instituted with the object of asserting claims over the self-acquired property and pension of Revisionist Nos. 1 and 2, who are aged and ailing. It was further contended that the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 is defective in the absence of any legally admissible proof of adoption. On these grounds, it was prayed that the summoning order and the appellate judgment be set aside. 11. 1 and 2, who are aged and ailing. It was further contended that the impleadment of Respondent No. 3 is defective in the absence of any legally admissible proof of adoption. On these grounds, it was prayed that the summoning order and the appellate judgment be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 opposed the revision and submitted that the impugned orders are in accordance with law and do not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. It was contended that the scope of consideration at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 12 of the Act is limited to the existence of a prima facie case, and that a detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible at this stage. 12. It was submitted that Respondent No. 2 had lived in the shared household after her marriage and was subjected to cruelty by the Revisionists, and that mere subsequent separation does not extinguish the domestic relationship, particularly where the aggrieved woman alleges forcible ouster. Learned counsel further argued that delay in invoking the remedies under the Act cannot, by itself, defeat a claim under a beneficial legislation meant to protect women from domestic abuse. 13. It was accordingly prayed that the criminal revision be dismissed. 14. This Court upon careful consideration observes that the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction is limited and is confined to examining the legality, correctness and propriety of the orders impugned. At the same time, it is well settled that where continuation of criminal proceedings results in abuse of the process of law or where the foundational requirements for initiation of proceedings are absent, the revisional court is not powerless to intervene. 15. The proceedings in the present case arise out of an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Though the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide effective protection to women against domestic abuse, it does not dispense with the requirement of the existence of a domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain an application under Section 12 is founded upon the existence of such a relationship, either subsisting or arising from a shared household where the aggrieved person had lived at some point of time. 16. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain an application under Section 12 is founded upon the existence of such a relationship, either subsisting or arising from a shared household where the aggrieved person had lived at some point of time. 16. In the present case, it is not in dispute that Respondent No. 2 is the widow of the son of Revisionist Nos. 1 and 2. However, the material on record indicates that Respondent No. 2 had been residing separately from the Revisionists since the year 2010 and that, after the death of her husband in the year 2019, she did not reside in the shared household. The application under Section 12 came to be filed after a considerable lapse of time, without any contemporaneous complaint of domestic violence either during the lifetime of the husband or immediately after his demise. While delay by itself may not be fatal in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, such delay assumes significance when examined in the context of the nature of allegations and the absence of any material indicating continuing or proximate acts of domestic violence. 17. A perusal of the application under Section 12 further reveals that the allegations are largely general in nature and do not disclose specific incidents with particulars of time, place or manner so as to prima facie demonstrate commission of domestic violence within the meaning of the Act. The issuance of summons, though not requiring a meticulous evaluation of evidence, nevertheless requires the Magistrate to record a prima facie satisfaction based on disclosed material. Mechanical issuance of summons without such satisfaction is impermissible. 18. The Court is also unable to ignore the fact that the reliefs sought by Respondent No. 2 substantially relate to assertions over property and pension of the aged parents-in-law. The Domestic Violence Act does not envisage adjudication of inheritance or pensionary disputes, and the criminal process cannot be permitted to be invoked for collateral civil purposes. While the veracity of such allegations may ordinarily be a matter of trial, the surrounding circumstances and the nature of pleadings are relevant to assess whether the proceedings are being used as a tool of harassment. 19. So far as the contention regarding the absence of a Domestic Incident Report is concerned, this Court is conscious of the legal position that the Magistrate is not mandatorily precluded from proceeding in the absence of such report. 19. So far as the contention regarding the absence of a Domestic Incident Report is concerned, this Court is conscious of the legal position that the Magistrate is not mandatorily precluded from proceeding in the absence of such report. However, the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, coupled with vague pleadings and lack of contemporaneous material, assumes relevance while examining whether the summoning order reflects due application of mind. 20. With respect to Respondent No. 3, the record does not disclose any document establishing adoption in accordance with law. While such an issue may ordinarily be examined during evidence, its absence at the threshold further reinforces the need for cautious scrutiny before subjecting the Revisionists to criminal proceedings. 21. The learned Appellate Court, while affirming the summoning order, has failed to advert to these material aspects and has proceeded on the premise that issuance of summons under Section 12 is a mere formality. The appellate judgment does not reflect an independent examination of the legality or propriety of the summoning order, nor does it address the specific objections raised by the Revisionists. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of proceedings against the Revisionists, who are senior citizens, in the absence of prima facie material disclosing a subsisting domestic relationship or specific acts of domestic violence, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The impugned appellate judgment and the summoning order, therefore, cannot be sustained. ORDER Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the criminal revision deserves to be allowed The judgment and order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the summoning order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 260 of 2024 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is also quashed. As a result thereof, the proceedings pending against the Revisionists before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 260 of 2024 are hereby quashed. The criminal revision is allowed accordingly.