Disposed¶23

Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2026NA528/20122/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing of DV Act proceedings (Sections 12, 18, 19, 22, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act) refused — alternative remedy of objection before Magistrate — territorial jurisdiction of Aligarh Magistrate upheld, complainant resident of Aligarh — Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158 applied — liberty to file objection/counter affidavit within two months — Deepak Verma, J. — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 20122 of 2026 — disposed May 15, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the DV Act proceedings declined; applicants at liberty to file objection/counter affidavit before the concerned court within two months, which shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. ¶23

Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Case No.23/2025 (Ritu Agrawal Vs. Amit Gupta & others) and the consequential proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Aligarh are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Proceedings under Sections 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.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The contention that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction because opposite party no. 2 does not reside in District Aligarh cannot be accepted at this stage; the contents of the complaint and the address shown therein reveal that she is a resident of Aligarh, and she had lodged FIR Case Crime No. 417 of 2024 in district Aligarh.

¶21

Key takeaways

The applicants have an efficacious alternative remedy of filing objection before the competent court.ratio¶21
In view of the Apex Court judgment cited (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158), the Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings challenged herein.ratio¶21
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.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 20122 of 2026, decided May 15, 2026 — Applicants (husband and in-laws) sought quashing of the order dated 08.01.2025 and proceedings in Case No. 23 of 2025 (Ritu Agrawal Vs. Amit Gupta & others) under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Aligarh, alleging the complaint was a malicious counterblast to criminal proceedings initiated by the husband. Held, applying Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158 (DV Act being welfare legislation, High Courts must be slow and circumspect in quashing Section 12(1) proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS; interference warranted only in gross illegality or injustice): the applicants have an efficacious alternative remedy of filing objection before the competent court; the objection that the Aligarh Magistrate lacked jurisdiction since opposite party no. 2 does not reside in District Aligarh cannot be accepted at this stage, the complaint showing her to be a resident of Aligarh where she also lodged FIR Case Crime No. 417 of 2024. Application disposed of with liberty to file objection/counter affidavit within two months, to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20122 of 2026

¶3

Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta And 4 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Chandra Bir Singh, Prem Sr. Advocate	Nath Tyagi,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 74

¶7

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

NA528 No. 20122 of 2026

¶12

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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:

¶16

"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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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".

¶19

NA528 No. 20122 of 2026

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The application is disposed of.

¶24

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶25

May 15, 2026 Meenu Singh

¶26

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

Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Gupta @ Kuldeep Gupta and 4 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

Angad Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swayamveer Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam @ Chhotu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Munne Khan vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary Home, Government of U.P. at Lucknow and Another