Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Rajsathan (2025:Rj-Jd:28910) on 4 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Rajsathan (2025:Rj-Jd:28910) on 4 July, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:28910]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5027/2025

1.          Ranjeet Singh S/o Shree Madhoo Singh Ji, Aged About 66
            Years, Resident Of Aamthala Sirohi Rajasthan
2.          Manju Kanwar Spouse/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 60
            Years, Resident Of Aamthala Sirohi Rajasthan.
3.          Veena Kanwar Spouse/o Mahipal Singh, Aged About 38
            Years,   Resident     Of     Son       Devine          Colony   Gatlodita
            Ahmedabad Gujarat
4.          Gurmeet Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
            Resident Aamthala Sirohi Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.          State Of Rajsathan, Pp
2.          Kavita Kanwar D/o Ladu Singh, Resident Of Chamunderi
            Nana Pali Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Arpit Surana
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

04/07/2025

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for the following

reliefs:-

“It is therefore, prayed that criminal petition filed
under Section 528 BNSS and 482 of the Cr.P.C. may
kindly be allowed and application bearing number CRM
274/2024 pending before judicial magistrate bali may
kindly be quashed.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

respondent No.2 after death of her husband has levelled false and

baseless allegations against the family members of her deceased

(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 09:44:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28910] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5027/2025]

husband. He submitted that the dispute between the respondent

No.2 and the family members of the deceased- husband is with

respect to succession of the estate left behind by the deceased-

husband. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.2

after the death of her husband lodged a criminal case against the

petitioners falsely alleging the offences being committed against

her under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC. He contended that co-

ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 11.09.2025 passed

in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6208/2024 filed on behalf of the

petitioners, was pleased to stay further proceedings in connection

with the FIR lodged by her for the offences under Sections 498-A

and 406 of the IPC.

3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the documents

attached with this instant criminal misc. petition, learned counsel

for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.2 only with a

view to harass and humiliate the petitioners, has initiated

proceedings against them under Section 12 of the DV Act, on the

ground that she is mentally and physically being tortured by the

present petitioners and, therefore, appropriate orders as per the

provisions of the DV Act, 2005 may be passed in her favour.

4. Learned counsel submitted that since the proceedings under

the DV Act have been initiated with absolutely false and baseless

allegations, the same may be quashed and set aside.

5. Upon being questioned by the Court, learned counsel for the

petitioners stated that no orders prejudicial to the interest of the

petitioners have been passed by the learned Magistrate in the

proceedings under DV Act against the petitioners till date.

(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 09:44:18 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:28910] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5027/2025]

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Saurabh

No.2688/2025 in para 35 has pleased to hold as under:-

“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 proceeding 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.”

7. In the present case, since no order against the interest of

the petitioners has been passed by the learned trial Court till date,

this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings under

Section 12 of the DV Act pending before the learned trial Court in

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.).

8. Consequently, the instant criminal misc. petition is dismissed

being devoid of any merit.

9. All pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
40-himanshu/-

(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 09:44:18 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)