Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010154452025 2026:GAU-AS:9075 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./858/2025 SALINA BEGUM AND 3 ORS W/O LATE NAZIMUDDIN AHMED R/O HOUSE NO. 12(A) RATAN DEWAN ROAD, ULUBARI,GUWAHATI, P.O. ULUBARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN- 781007 2: MOHSINA BEGUM D/O LATE NAZIMUDDIN AHMED R/O HOUSE NO. 12(A) RATAN DEWAN ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI P.O. ULUBARI P.S. PALTAN BAZAR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781007 3: FAIJUL JALAL S/O LATE MOBASSIR ALI R/O HOUSE NO. 12(A) RATAN DEWAN ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI (AS TENANT) P.O. ULUBARI P.S. PALTAN BAZAR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781007. 4: BABUL ALI S/O LATE KASHIM ALI Page No.# 2/15 R/O HOUSEN O. 21 RATAN DEWAN ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI. P.O. ULUBARI P.S. PALTAN BAZAR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781007 VERSUS NEHA SHARMA AND ANR D/O LATE JAGADISH P. SHARMA W/O TANVEER AHMED R/O C/O DILIP SINGH, HOUSE NO. 5, MANIPUR BASTI, RAJBARI, GUWAHATI, P.S. PALTANBAZAR, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM PIN-781007. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP GOVT. OF ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H RAJBARBHUIYAN, MS R BEGUM,MRS R CHETRI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B BORA(R1),MR. M BORAH(R1) Page No.# 3/15 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 23-06-20 26 Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. B. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 BNSS (482 of CrPC) praying for quashing of the proceeding of D.V. Case No. 127/2024, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, which has been filed by the respondent No.1. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel that the present respondent No.1 had instituted a divorce proceeding being D.V. Case No. 127/2024 against the present petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 with some false and concocted allegations of mental and physical torture on the respondent No.1. Petitioner Nos. 1 is the widowed mother-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is the sister- in-law of the respondent No.1 and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the tenant and neighbour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 4. It is submitted that from the D.V. proceeding it is evident that the marriage took place in the year 2007 and the D.V. proceeding was instituted only in the year 2024. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the son of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 was an inter-caste religion marriage, wherein the respondent No.1 is a follower of Hindu religion and the son of the petitioner No.1 is a follower of Muslim religion. 5. He further submitted that though some allegation of mental and physical Page No.# 4/15 torture has been brought in the petition against her and her husband, but from the statement made in the D.V. proceeding, it is seen that they are living separately in a rented premises in Manipuri Basti and hence, there is no domestic relationship with the present petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 6. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan further submitted that as per definition of Section 2(f) of DV Act, the domestic relationship “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 other family members living together as a joint family”. But here in the instant case, it is very evident that the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 had never any domestic relationship with the respondent No.1 and they only made party in this case with a view to harass them as they are the tenant as well as neighbour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 7. Further from the statement made by the respondent No.1, in her DV Case, it is seen that they are living separately in a rented premises and they have no domestic relationship even with the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 since their marriage. However, he submitted that till one month of their marriage they were living in the same household, but thereafter, they got separated and staying in a rented premises at Manipuri Basti having no relationship with the petitioners. 8. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan further submitted that the husband of the respondent No.1 is the only son of the petitioner No.1, who is also occupying some share in their premises, but inspite of his occupation, he filed a civil suit claiming right over the property only with a view to harass the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, widowed mother as well as his sister. Further on the instigation of the husband of the respondent No.1 only, she instituted the domestic violence case against Page No.# 5/15 the present petitioners without having any reasons with some false and concocted allegation, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. He further submitted that the husband of the respondent No.1 is a habitual drinker and he used to create a scene very often in the area, for which the petitioner No.1 had to admit him in a rehab center only for recovery but the respondent No.1 also brought some allegation against the petitioner No.1 and in that view also the D.V. proceeding has been instituted against the present petitioners. 10. In one hand, the husband of the respondent No. 1 is harassing the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 by filing civil suit claiming right over the property and on the other hand, the respondent No.1 has also lodged this false and concocted case with the allegation of mental and physical torture only with a view to harass the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 along with petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, who are no way related or involved in the alleged offence. 11. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan relied a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and other reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and basically emphasized on para 16 and 17 of the said judgment, wherein the petition for quashing was allowed, which was based on some general and omnibus allegations without any specific mention about the offence committed by the accused persons. 12. Here in the instant case also, it is seen that some general allegations has been brought against the present petitioners without describing any specific incident, however, some incident of outraging of the modesty and uttering of obscene language has been brought against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 specifically in the petition by the respondent No.1. Page No.# 6/15 13. He also relied on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and relied on para 13 to 26 of the said judgment wherein it has been observed that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court or quashing of the proceeding would otherwise serve the ends of justice. Para 14, 21, 22 and 26 read as under: “14. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 21. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts. 22. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, a three-Judge Bench of this court held as under:- ".....In case the impugned order clearly brings out a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court, or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. Such cases would necessarily be few and far between. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. The present case would undoubtedly fall for exercise of the power of the High Court in accordance with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, that the invoking of the Page No.# 7/15 revisional power of the High Court is impermissible." 26. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC 122 observed thus:- "It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."” 14. Ms. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted in this regard that the respondent No. 1 was subjected to mental and physical torture as she belongs to another religion. Apart from that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who was the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.1 used to inflict mental and physical torture on her with the help of other two petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, who are the tenant and neighbour of the petitioner No.1 also used to torture her and even harassing her by making some obscene remarks and tried to outrage her modesty for which she also had to institute a case against those petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. 15. After her marriage with the son of the petitioner No.1, she used to live in the same house sharing the same household with the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, but after the death of her brother in the year 2012, she had to stay with her mother in a rented premise at Manipuri Basti. But her husband used to stay in her matrimonial house and for that reason also she used to come to her matrimonial house for the sake of her husband, but whenever she came and used to stay in her matrimonial house, all the petitioners used to inflict mental and physical torture on her. 16. She further submitted that the husband of the respondent No.1 also Page No.# 8/15 lodged two FIRs in the police station because of the harassment caused by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. She further submitted that the she was never informed when her husband was intentionally taken to a rehab center in the month of April 2024 for admission and on the same day, she somehow managed to get her husband released from the rehab center, which also caused tremendous mental pressure to the respondent No.1. 17. She further submitted that her statement was recorded by the Protection Officer and accordingly report is also submitted wherefrom, it is seen that there is prima facie materials to institute a case or to take cognizance against the petitioners under D.V. Act. 18. Ms. Bora further submitted that the case is at very initial stage and no evidence is recorded till date and thus, the petitioners will get ample opportunity to make their defence at the time of hearing and considering the prima facie materials against the present petitioners, it is not at all a fit case to pass any order of quashing by invoking the power under Section 528 BNSS. 19. The respondent No.1 has prayed for protection as well as monetary relief under the said D.V. Case No. 127/2024, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 20. Ms. Bora, learned counsel also relied on a decision of this High Court in Crl. Pet. No. 307/2025, wherein also the petition for quashing was dismissed considering the initial stage of the case and also with a view that the petitioners will get ample opportunity to contest the case and to take proper defence. 21. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case record, it is seen that the present D.V. Case is instituted by the respondent No.1 with an allegation that she was mentally and Page No.# 9/15 physically tortured by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.1 and apart from that she also brought some allegation against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, who are the tenant and neighbour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 22. It is stated that after one month of their marriage, her husband went for his work when the in-laws, i.e., the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 used to torture her mentally and physically and also threatened that they are going to throw her out of the house as the respondent No.1 being the follower of Hindu religion. For such mental torture on her, she even approached the Paltanabazar Police Station on several occasions but the police did not register any case, as the petitioners used to come to the police station and requested not to register any case with an assurance that they will never repeat the torture on the respondent No.1. 23. She basically brought the allegation that she was subjected to mental and physical torture as she belong to another religion and the marriage between her and her husband had taken place without any consent of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 24. Apart from that she also brought allegation against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 who are the tenant and neighbour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 that they also used to torture her mentally and even they uttered some obscene language and also tried to outrage her modesty and even some obscene act has been done by the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. It is further alleged that though the respondent No. 1 is living separately in a rented premised, but whenever she used to come to her matrimonial house, the in-laws, i.e., the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 used to torture her mentally and physically and she could not even stay in her matrimonial house though her husband is still living in the house, occupying Page No.# 10/15 one portion of the house. 25. As there was continuous threatening from the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 that she would be thrown out from the house, her husband was bound to institute a title suit before the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup (M). She brought further allegation that the petitioners not only tortured her mentally and physically, but they also used to torture her husband and one occasion, the petitioners with the help of some other person kept him in a rehab center without informing the respondent No.1 and somehow, she could managed to get her husband released from the rehab center. 26. So basically these are the allegations brought against the petitioners, on the basis of which she instituted a D.V. proceeding, wherein she prayed for protection order as well as for order of residents and also prayed for some monetary relief against the petitioners. From the prayer portion it also reveals that she basically prayed for her protection and as an interim also prayed for monetary relief with a direction for payment of Rs.50,000/- to her by the present petitioners. 27. But from the perusal of the statement made in the D.V. proceeding itself, it is seen that the respondent No. 1 is not staying in the same premises sharing the same household, rather, she is admittedly staying in a rented premises with her mother and son in Manipuri Basti. Further, it is also seen that admittedly the marriage took place in the year 2007, but till 2024, no case has been instituted against the present petitioners, even if it is alleged that after one month of their marriage she was subjected to mental and physical torture by the petitioners. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also admitted the fact that the respondent No.1 is staying separately in a rented premises along with her mother after the death of her only brother since 2012, however, Page No.# 11/15 it is claimed that sometime she used to visit her matrimonial house, where her husband is still occupying one portion of the house and whenever she came to her husband, the petitioners used to inflict mental and physical torture on her. But even if it is considered that she came occasionally to her matrimonial house, but the fact remains same that she is not staying with her in-laws, i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the same premises though it is claimed that her husband is still occupying a portion of the building in the same premises. 28. As per definition of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act 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. 29. Further as per Section 2(s) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act definition “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. 30. But here in the instant case, it is seen that there is no specific mention as to from which period she was staying in her matrimonial house except the mentioning that after one month of their marriage, they started torturing her physically and mentally, though it is an admitted position that she has a Page No.# 12/15 relationship with the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 through marriage. But there is no such evidence that she was sharing the same household with her in-laws and there is no specific mention as to when she had to leave her matrimonial house. But admitted position is that she is living separately with her mother in the rented premises at Manipuri Basti, though it is claimed that her husband is still occupying a portion of the building in the same premises along with the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 31. The allegation which has been brought against the petitioners are also not specific and it is the only allegation that she along with her husband was subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioners including the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 who are not the family members nor there is relationship with those two petitioners by marriage or through adoption or nor they are the family members of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 or the respondent. There may be some allegation of outraging her modesty or uttering obscene words as well as physical torture against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, but for that they cannot be roped under the D.V. Act and they have no relationship, neither through marriage or through adoption etc., with the respondent No.1 as well as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 32. Further from the statement made in the complaint petition itself it is seen that the husband of the respondent No.1 already instituted a civil suit claiming his share/right over the property wherein the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being his mother and sister are staying. It is also claimed that one portion of the land is still under his occupation and inspite of that he is claiming his share over the property and on that basis, he already instituted a Title Suit against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 33. Coming to the issue raised by the respondent side that she was bound to Page No.# 13/15 institute this case as her husband was also subjected to torture by her mother- in-law and sister-in-law and that apart without informing her he was admitted in rehab center at Noonmati by the petitioner No.1. But, it is submitted by Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan that as the husband of the respondent No.1 is a habitual drinker and used to create a scene in the neighbourhood, the petitioner No.1 who is his own mother had to admit him in the rehab center only for his betterment. Even if it is considered that the husband of the respondent No.1 was admitted in the rehab center with some mala-fide intention, in that case also this cannot be a ground for instituting a D.V. proceeding against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 34. Though it is an admitted that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 has a domestic relationship with the respondent No.1 in a nature of marriage, but from the discussion made above, it is seen that the grounds which were taken in the D.V. proceeding cannot be considered as a proper ground for proceeding a case under the D. V. Act against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. That apart, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are no way connected or related with the respondent No.1 neither through any marriage relationship, adoption or not they are the family members of the respondent No.1 or the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Even if it is considered that there was some misconduct on the part of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 or even if there is any obscene remark or obscene act done by the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in that event also the respondent No.1 can very well approach the appropriate forum for relief but through a D.V. proceeding, no relief can be sought for against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. 35. It is also further claimed by the respondent No.1 that her husband had lodged an FIR against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for the physical torture meted on him, but in that case also there may be a case for physical torture and the appropriate forum will be different and for such torture on the husband of the Page No.# 14/15 respondent No.1 also cannot be a proper ground for instituting a D.V. proceeding against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 36. However, the respondent No.1 can seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum of law if she is subjected to any mental and physical torture including her husband. But the grounds which have been mentioned in the D.V. petition and from the discussion made above, it is seen that these grounds are not at all sufficient to institute a proceeding against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and question of D.V. proceeding against the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 even does not arise at all. 37. So from the discussion made above and also considering the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners it is seen that if the further proceeding is allowed to be continued, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court and quashing of the proceeding would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 38. It is settled position of law that inherent power under Section 528 BNSS corresponding to 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution only when such exercise is justified. 39. In the instant case also as discussed above, it is found to be a fit case to set aside and quash the entire proceeding of D.V. Case No. 127/2024, presently, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati initiated by the respondent No.1 against the present petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 40. Accordingly, the proceeding of D.V. Case No. 127/2024, initiated by the respondent No.1 against the present petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 presently, Page No.# 15/15 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati is hereby set aside and quashed. 41. This criminal petition accordingly, stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant