Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Domestic Violence Act proceedings was dismissed for being vague, misconceived, and filed belatedly without disclosing the status of related pending proceedings or explaining the delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197925
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31016 of 2023
Applicant :- Brij Kishor And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Brij Kishor, Rakesh and Smt. Rajkumari with the prayer to quash the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 475 of 2015 (Smt. Bhagwati Vs. Brij Kishor and others) under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jhansi pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC/CAW, Jhansi.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of applicant no. 1 with opposite party no. 2 was solemnised on 04.05.2003 and from their wedlock, two children, namely, Mayank and Rinku were born. On 05.11.2013, opposite party no. 2, without any reason, left the house of applicant no. 1 and filed Maintenance Case No. 324 of 2014 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in which the applicant no. 1 is giving maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2000/- per month to his son Rinku. She has filed Complaint Case No. 5031 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants, which is still pending. On 24.04.2015, opposite party no. 2 has also filed a complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act on the false and concocted allegations just to harass the applicants whereas applicant nos. 2 and 3, who are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of opposite party no. 2, are living
separately from applicant no. 1, therefore, impugned proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. representing the State vehemently opposed by contending that the applicants have not come with clean hand. As per case of the applicants, impugned proceeding is pending since 2015 but present status of the said proceeding has not been brought on record by the applicants and even complete order-sheet of the case has also not been filed by them.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find substance in the submission of learned A.G.A. representing the State. This Court is of the view that proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the complaint for the offences under IPC are separate proceeding from the case under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. I also find that the instant application has been filed after about eight years without disclosing the present status of the impugned proceeding and the cause of delay in concluding the same. On putting query, no convincing explanation has been given by learned counsel for the applicants in this regard. This application is wholly vague and misconceived, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .
Copy of this order be sent to opposite party no. 2 as well as concerned Court below for necessary information.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023 Shubham
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Domestic Violence Act proceedings deserves delay-free and complete record disclosure?
Whether lack of status of pending maintenance proceedings vitiates quashing application filed after eight years?
Whether the court can dismiss a vague and misconceived quashing application lacking clean hand?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Brij Kishor and 2 Others
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Shubham Kumar Agrahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
