Dismissed¶19

Chandrakant & Ors. v. Indu Tanwar

Delhi HC14 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./5624/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi; Amit Mahajan, J.; CRL.M.C. 5624/2025; decided 14.08.2025; Chandrakant & Ors. v. Indu Tanwar; quashing of complaint under S.12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; vague allegations; counterblast to S.9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 petition; delay of over four years in filing quashing petition; trial proceeding; dismissed with liberty to argue before Trial Court; expedition of evidence recording requested.

What did the court decide?

No relief; quashing petition dismissed. Petitioner left at liberty to address all arguments before the learned Trial Court; Trial Court requested to expedite recording of evidence and pass a final order. ¶19

Chandrakant & Ors. Vs Indu Tanwar — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether Complaint Case No. 923/2021 filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act is liable to be quashed on the grounds that its allegations are vague and that it is a counterblast to the petitioners' petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly given the pendency of trial and delay in filing the quashing petition.

¶12

Court's answer

The complaint cannot be quashed on an argument which is in the nature of a defence, especially when the trial has since proceeded and the present petition was filed after more than four years of filing of the complaint; the petitioner's contentions are to be considered by the Trial Court after evidence is recorded.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The petition has no merit and is dismissed.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to address all arguments before the learned Trial Court.ratio¶20
The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite recording of evidence and pass a final order.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of DV Act complaint refused — Complaint Case No. 923/2021 under Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before Trial Court since 20.07.2021 — Petitioners contended the complaint contained vague allegations, was a counterblast to their petition under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that trial was delayed at the respondent's instance — Held: such contentions are in the nature of defence and cannot justify quashing once trial has proceeded; the quashing petition itself was filed after more than four years of the complaint — Petition dismissed; petitioner free to urge all arguments before the Trial Court, which is requested to expedite recording of evidence and pass a final order.

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 5624/2025, CRL.M.A. 24096/2025 & CRL.M.A. 24097/2025 CHANDRAKANT & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shubham Shrivastava, Adv. (through VC)

¶4

versus

¶5

INDU TANWAR .....Respondent

¶6

Through:

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 14.08.2025

¶10

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 923/2021 titled as Indu Tanwar v. Chanderkant &Ors. , filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘ DV Act ’).

¶11

The subject complaint was filed way back on 20.07.2021 and is pointed out to be listed for recording of evidence.

¶12

The petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint stating that vague allegations were made and the complaint was a counterblast to the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial has been delayed at the instance of respondent as she is not coming forward for recording of evidence.

¶14

Undisputedly, the complaint was filed long back and the matter has since proceeded. All the defence and arguments addressed by the petitioner would be considered after the learned

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2025 at 12:15:31

¶17

Trial Court has recorded the evidence.

¶18

The complaint cannot be quashed on the argument which is in the nature of defence especially when the trial has since proceeded and the present petition has been filed after more than four years of filing of the complaint.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.

¶20

The petitioner is at liberty to address all arguments before the learned Trial Court.

¶21

The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite recording of evidence and pass a final order.

¶22

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶23

AUGUST 14, 2025 “SS”

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2025 at 12:15:31

Chandrakant & Ors. v. Indu Tanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant & Ors. v. Indu Tanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs State

Teson Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Khema Nand Sharma

Sh. Kanchhid Lal Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ankit Bhanot Vs Anil Gupta

Mohit Vs State of NCT of Delhi