Ramashankar Raghuwanshi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26799 of 2025

¶3

Ramashankar Raghuwanshi And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Rajeev Malviya : Dinesh Kumar Maurya, Ram Raj Prajapati, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 76

¶7

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The application is filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1392 of 2024 (Smt. Ankita Vs. Shashanshu Raghuwanshi and others) under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, P.S. Kotwali Hameerpur, District Hameerpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C.-II/CAW, Hameerpur.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act has been drawn against applicants, who are family members of husband. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the wife after marriage went to rented accommodation and have never lived with the applicants and as such, provision of Domestic Violence Act could not be attracted as there was no occasion for living shared household with the applicants.

¶11

It is to be seen that in the present case only proceedings have been drawn. There is no order against applicants under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, which would have any instance of coercive measures. It is further to be seen that the applicants have remedy of filing an objection before the court concerned in pursuance to any notice issued under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act or there is remedy of challenging the order issuing notice in appeal. Although, learned counsel for applicants has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 873, to submit that application under Section 528 BNSS would be maintainable, however, it is to be seen that the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is a discretionary jurisdiction. Once there is no coercive action taken against applicants, applicants have always remedy of filing an objection before the court concerned and court concerned would decide the same. Even otherwise the question whether the applicants were living in shared household or not is a question of fact, for which, findings are required to be recorded at the stage of trial. At this summary stage, it would not be appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction

¶12

NA528 No. 26799 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

specifically in view of paragraph 35 and 36 of the Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi (supra) . Paragraph 35 and 36 are quoted herein below:

¶15

"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 handsoff 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.

¶16

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 cognisance 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."

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, this Court declines to entertain the petition at this stage and relegate the applicants to file an objection before the appellate court.

¶18

It is made clear that since the applicants are relatives of husband and are living in another State, therefore, it would be appropriate that the applicants may appear before the trial court through counsel. However, the trial court would be at liberty to summon applicants by recording reasons in writing.

¶19

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.

¶20

November 26, 2025

¶21

D. Tamang

¶22

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramashankar Raghuwanshi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashankar Raghuwanshi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amrit Lal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajesh Kumar and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Vinod Goyal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Mishra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Shahid and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another