MANOJ GUPTA @ KULDEEP GUPTA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20122 of 2026

Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta And 4 Others
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Chandra Bir Singh, Prem Nath Tyagi,
                                Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Vikrant Rana, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Chandra Bir Singh, learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.

2. Present application has been filed to quash the order dated 08.01.2025
passed in Case No.23/2025 (Ritu Agrawal Vs. Amit Gupta& others) by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Aligarh and the
entire consequential proceedings of Case No. 23 of 2025 (Ritu Agrawal Vs.
Amit Gupta & others) under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 22 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, pending in the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Aligarh.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no. 2 is husband and
 applicants no. 1 and 3 to 5 are in-laws of opposite party no. 2. Brief facts of
the case is that the marriage between Applicant No. 2 and Opposite Party
No. 2 was solemnized on 27.04.2021 as per Hindu Rites and sufficient
dowry was given by the father of the opposite party no. 2. After marriage on
account of some domestic dispute, the opposite party no.2 was ousted from
the matrimonial house. The applicant no.2/husband lodged F.I.R. bearing
Case Crime No.568 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against
the wife, opposite party no.2 wherein charge sheet has been submitted
against the opposite party no. 2 and her friend and learned Magistrate took
cognizance on 07.03.2025. It is next submitted that opposite party no. 2
challenged the said order by filing application under Section 482 No. 9164
of 2025 before the Hon. High Court, Lucknow Bench and the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 stayed the proceedings of
the case and directed for personal appearance of both the parties. Thereafter
on 15.12.2025, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre
of Lucknow Bench.
                                                              NA528 No. 20122 of 2026
                                    2

4. Counsel for the applicant further submits that as a counter-blast to the
criminal proceedings initiated by the husband/applicant no. 2, the opposite
Party No. 2 initially lodged an FIR as Case Crime No.417 of 2024 under
Sections 352, 351(2), 316(2)m 115(2) 89 and 85 of BNS and Section 3/4
D.P. Act the BNS and Dowry Prohibition Act at Aligarh, in which the
police, after investigation, found no evidence and submitted a Final Report
(F.R. No. 35 of 2025). Now the opposite Party No. 2 has instituted the
present complaint with malicious intention under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 22
of D.V. Act, only to harass the applicant no. 2/husband and other family
members. The notices issued against the applicants under Section 12, 18, 19
and 22 of D.V. Act is illegal, arbitrary and abuse of the process of the Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the
case.

6. The Hon. Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No.2688 of 2025 in Shaurabh
Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158
has held thus:

"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.

36. We must also note here that against an order passed by a learned Magistrate,
there is an appeal provided under Section 29 to the Court of Session. In contrast,
generally, there is no remedy of appeal available against an order taking cognizance
of an offence or an order issuing process. This is another reason why the High Court
should exercise caution when exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings
under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005.
........................
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".
                                                                                            NA528 No. 20122 of 2026
                                                                    3
                                    7. Upon consideration of the submission and perusal of the record, it is
                                    evident that the proceedings under Section 12, 18, 19 and 22 of the D.V.Act
                                    are quasi civil and criminal in nature, wherein only notice is required to be
                                    issued. In present case, learned Magistrate has issued notice to the applicants
                                    against which applicant has filed present application. It was argued by
                                    counsel for the applicant that learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to
                                    entertain the application as opposite party no. 2 do not reside in District
                                    Aligarh, this submission cannot be accepted at this stage. The contents of
                                    complaint and address shown therein reveal that opposite party no.2 is
                                    resident of Aligarh. Moreover, the opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. as Case
                                    Crime No.417 of 2024, in district Aligarh. The argument raised by counsel
                                    that opposite party no. 2 with malice intention has lodged complaint in
                                    District Aligarh has no force. The applicants have an efficacious alternative
                                    remedy of filing objection before the competent court. In view of the Apex
                                    Court judgement cited above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the
                                    proceedings challenged herein.

                                    8. However, if the applicants file objection/counter affidavit before the
                                    concerned court within a period of two months, the same shall be decided as
                                    expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

                                    9. The application is disposed of.



                                                                                              (Deepak Verma,J.)
                                    May 15, 2026
                                    Meenu Singh




Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad