Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Usha Samlani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29125) on 7 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:29125]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5123/2025
1. Usha Samlani W/o Ghyanchand Samlani, Aged About 60
Years, R/o C-327-328, Murlipura Scheme, Sikar Road,
Jaipur
2. Lokesh Samlani S/o Ghyanchand Samlani, Aged About 35
Years, R/o C-327-328, Murlipura Scheme, Sikar Road,
Jaipur
3. Manvi Samlani W/o Lokesh Samlani, Aged About 32
Years, R/o C-327-328, Murlipura Scheme, Sikar Road,
Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Janvi Samlani W/o Prakash Samlani, D/o Prakash
Nathwani R/o House Of Om Prakash Sankhla, Gulab
Sagar, Bacche Ki Gali, Near Sakambhari Jwellers Clock
Tower, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhawal Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
07/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have prayed
for the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present
criminal misc. petition and the order passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate no.03, Jodhpur Dated 12.06.2024 and
order passed by Special Judge(WAC), Jodhpur Dated
25.05.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all
consequential proceedings and it may be further directed not
to take any coercive action against the petitioners.”
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:39:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29125] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5123/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.3,
and Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Jodhpur
Metropolitan, Jodhpur in the impugned orders dated 12.06.2024
and 22.05.2025 while deciding the application filed on behalf of
the petitioners seeking deletion of their names from the
application filed on behalf of respondent No.2 under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.V. Act‘) failed to take into
consideration the fact that petitioners are the mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2 and they were
living separately from respondent No.2 and her husband.
3. Learned counsel submitted that a bare reading of the
complaint submitted by the respondent No.2 would go to show
that none of the allegations made therein constitute domestic
violence as contemplated under D.V. Act. To substantiate this
contention, learned counsel submitted that prior to filing of the
complaint under D.V. Act, the husband of respondent No.2 had
filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. He contended that after filing of divorce
petition by the husband of respondent No.2, she had lodged an
FIR at Police Station Mahila Thana (Jodhpur City East), District
Jodhpur City-East on 02.08.2023 under Section 498-A, 406 and
232 of the IPC against her husband and present petitioners. The
police after making investigation in relation to the said FIR lodged
by the respondent No.2, filed a charge-sheet on 30.11.2023 only
against her husband under Section 498-A and 323 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since a case
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:39:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29125] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5123/2025]
under D.V. Act has been filed against the present petitioners on
totally false grounds, the same deserves to be quashed and set
aside qua the present petitioners.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned orders.
5. From perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that
though the petitioners have stated that the husband of the
complainant – respondent No.2 is living separately from them but
the record indicates that he is living on the first floor of the same
property in which petitioners are residing. The learned Court in the
impugned orders dated 12.06.2024 and 22.05.2025 have clearly
noted that the contents of the complaint submitted by the
respondent No.2 has specific allegations of domestic violence
against the petitioners. No reply to the complaint has been
submitted by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court and
therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that no prima facie case
exists against them and the allegations levelled against them are
entirely baseless.
6. In the opinion of this Court, since the application seeking
deletion of name from the array of respondents was filed by the
petitioners before the learned trial Court before submitting any
response, the same could not have been considered by it being
premature in nature. The petitioners in order to get their names
deleted from the array of respondents ought to have
demonstrated before the learned trial Court by way of filing reply
to the complaint that inclusion of their names in the present case
is a result of false, vexatious or malicious intent. This Court in the
absence of strong proof of abuse of process is not inclined to
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:39:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29125] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5123/2025]
accept the prayer for deletion of their names from the complaint
filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act
before the learned trial Court merely because they are close
relatives of the husband of respondent No.2 or claim innocence.
7. In that view of the matter, the instant criminal misc.
petitioner is dismissed being devoid of any merit, however, the
petitioners shall be at liberty to file an application seeking deletion
of their names from the complaint submitted by the respondent
No.2 before the learned trial Court after filing their reply/response
to the said complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act.
8. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
43-Dinesh/-
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:39:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)