Allahabad High Court
Sarthak Pandey And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140473 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29976 of 2025 Applicant :- Sarthak Pandey And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Gupta,Rakesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 711 of 2021, Smt. Anuradha Pandey vs. Sarthak Pandey and Others, under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC, Kanpur Dehat. Pass an order directing the concerned respondents not to take any coercive steps against the applicants in pursuance of the proceedings of Case No. 711 of 2021 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC, Kanpur Dehat.
3. The case of the applicants is that the opposite party no. 2 had preferred complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the D.V. Act against the applicants who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on 10.02.2018. The allegation is that huge expenditure and gifts were offered to the applicants but they were not happy with the same as they demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- additional amount and the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to atrocities, maltreatment and assault and abuses were also hurled and on 10.08.2020 when again demand was made and when reluctance was shown by the opposite party no. 2 then they hurled abuses, assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and tool away all valuables including streedhan and thrown out the opposite party no. 2 from the matrimonial house. The entire story was narrated to her parents by the opposite party no. 2 and with the help of good offices, the things get moved on for pacifying the same but the applicants were adamant upon the said demand and on 08.04.2021 the applicants herein came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and hurled abuses and demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- additional gifts/dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the allegations contained in the complaint as well as the order issuing notices to the applicants, applicants cannot be sustained for the simple reasons that the entire allegations are nothing but bundle of lies just to falsely implicate the applicants and to entangle them. Submission is that at no point of time any domestic violence was extended to the opposite party no. 2 as the entire story so sought to be cooked up is imaginary and illusary. Further submission is that the applicants are innocent.
5. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that no order whatsoever has been passed only notices have been issued, thus, this Court may not interfere at this stage.
6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
7. At the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the maintainability of the complaint as well as the order issuing notices. There are certain broad parameters which had to be adhered to while examining whether the complaint allegations and the complaint are frivolous or not as the same would not merit any chance for being proceeded with. Amongst other factors, once of the factor inevitably would be the nature of the allegations contained in the complaint. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles what would be relevant in the present case would be the fact whether the opposite party no. 2 happens to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a), there is any domestic relationship under Section 2(f), the applicants answer the description of respondents under Section 2(q) and there is any shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act. Importantly, the opposite party no. 2 is a wife who claims that she has been subjected to domestic violence, thus, she prima facie comes within the definition of Section 2(a). Now, once the allegation that again the applicants against whom the act and the omission of extending of domestic violence is concerned then the applicants herein who are respondents in the complaint answer the definition of respondents under Section 2(q). The words employed in Section 2(f) domestic relationship means a relationship between persons who live or have at any point of time live together marks significance particularly when shared household is to be determined not at the time when the complaint is being lodged but it should be an event relatable to at any point of time further so far as the shared household is concerned from the nature of the allegation it cannot be said that the case is not liable to be proceeded with particularly when the allegations are with respect to domestic violence. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that when the applicant no. 1 had gone to his in-laws place being the maternal house of the opposite party no. 2 then he was also meted with violence is concerned the same is the separate aspect of the matter which needs to be examined in an appropriate proceedings this Court at this stage is confined itself to be allegations under Domestic Violence Act. Moreover, prima facie, the Court does not find that the allegations in the complaint are frivolous as they are subject to scrutiny and adjudication when the proceedings are allowed to continue.
8. The extent of judicial intervention in the matter of complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) decided on 19.05.2025, Hon’ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the challenge to the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, wherein para 35 and 39 was observed as under.-
“…35. 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 proceedings 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.
39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice.”
9. Bearing in mind that no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the Act and in case any orders are passed they are amenable to challenge under Section 29 of the Act by way of appeal or preferring appropriate application under Section 25 of the Act and looking into the nature of the allegations this Court does not find the present case as a fit case for interference so as to scuttle the proceedings at this stage.
10. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicants to take all legal and factual pleas while contesting the trial and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.8.2025
Rajesh