Allahabad High Court

ARCHANA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The father and brothers do not come within the definition of Section 2(f) of the PWDVA, but the proceeding cannot be quashed; the applicants must raise their objection before the magistrate.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 seeking to quash a criminal complaint (case no. 1126 of 2026) filed by the mother‑in‑law under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The complaint named the daughter‑in‑law and also her father and brothers, who the applicants argued do not fall within the definition of a respondent under Section 2(f) of the Act and therefore the proceeding is a case of malicious prosecution. The High Court examined whether the father and brothers could be made accused and held that they are not covered by Section 2(f), but the proceeding is a hybrid civil‑criminal matter for which the applicants have a remedy to raise an objection before the magistrate. Consequently, the Court refused to quash the proceeding and disposed of the Section 528 application with directions to file any objection within two weeks and for the magistrate to decide it within four weeks, staying any coercive action in the meantime.

Issues considered

Whether the father and brothers of the daughter‑in‑law fall within the definition of a respondent under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Whether the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act can be quashed on the ground of malicious prosecution.
Whether the application under Section 528 of the BNSS can be dismissed in view of the hybrid nature of the proceeding.

Legislation cited

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12, 2(f)

Subjects

Domestic Violence
Section 528 application
Quash proceeding
Malicious prosecution
Hybrid civil‑criminal proceeding
Section 2(f) definition
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16691 of 2026

Archana And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kuldeep Singh Chahar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant to quash the application and quash the entire proceeding of
complaint case no. 1126 of 2026 (Smt. Usha Vs. Archana and others)
under section 12 of Protection of Women from domestic violence Act
2005 police station Highway District Mathura as well as the complaint no.
1126 of 2026 2026 (Smt. Usha Vs. Archana and others) under section 12
of Protection of Women from domestic violence Act 2005 police station
Highway District Mathura. Pending in the court of Learned Judicial
Magistrate VIIth District Mathura.

3. Applicant's counsel submits that instant complaint lodged by mother-
in-law of applicant No.1 under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act. Opposite party No.2 has filed present complaint adding
father and brothers of her daughter-in-law, having no concern with the
alleged incident and do not fall under the definition of Section 2(f) of
Domestic Violence Act. Present complaint lodged against the applicants
are malicious prosecution. Issuance of notice by learned Magistrate is
without application of judicial mind.

4. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel, present
application filed against the issuance of notice by learned Magistrate. As
per applicant's counsel submission, applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are
NA528 No. 16691 of 2026
2

brothers and father of applicant no.1, do not come under the definition of
Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The
applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are father and brothers of complainant's
daughter-in-law (applicant No.1). The father and brothers of applicant
No.1 is not responsible to maintain the mother-in-law of his
daughter/sister, for the maintenance and relief sought from the applicants
by the complainant/opposite party no.2 in the aforesaid proceeding cannot
be entertained. Court also finds that applicant Nos.2 to 4 do not come
under the definition of aforesaid section and they cannot be made accused
in the present proceeding. Since the present proceeding is semi civil and
semi criminal proceeding and applicants have remedy to raise objection
before appropriate Forum, hence, prayer to quash the proceeding is
hereby refused.

5. The present application U/s 528 BNSS is disposed off with direction
that if applicants filed objection/application before learned Magistrate,
within a period of two weeks from today, the Magistrate shall decide the
same within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of
objection/application, after hearing both the parties and keeping in view
the observation made in the aforesaid order.

6. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of filing of
objection/application before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no
coercive action shall be taken against them.

(Deepak Verma,J.)
April 23, 2026
Nitin Verma

Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…