Dismissed¶17

Jodh Singh and Others v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC21 May 2026CRMMO/204/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of DV Act / Section 12(1) proceedings refused; domestic incident report; dowry harassment by parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law; inherent jurisdiction does not weigh truth of allegations; DV Act proceedings predominantly civil in nature; Order VI CPC facts-only pleading; Section 482 CrPC hands-off approach in DV matters; matter pending before trial court left to it; Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.; relied on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158), Punit Beriwala (2025 SCC OnLine SC 983), Maneesha Yadav (2024 SCC OnLine SC 643), Iqbal (2023) 8 SCC 734; Bhajan Lal Category-3 and Anand Kumar Mohatta / Joseph Salvaraj A. appear only within quoted extracts.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed and the proceedings before the learned Trial Court were not quashed. ¶17

Jodh Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Another — Domestic Violence | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was dismissed and the proceedings before the learned Trial Court were not quashed.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4 of 2026 (Jaspreet Kaur vs. Parvinder Singh, etc.) pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib should be quashed qua the petitioners. +4 more

¶4

Court's answer

In relation to quashing applications under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach under Section 482 CrPC and interfere only where there is gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi).

¶9

Ratio / Principle

A Court exercising inherent jurisdiction does not go into the validity or truthfulness of the allegations and has to treat them as correct; hence the submission that the allegations against the petitioners are false does not help them (position laid down in Punit Beriwala and Maneesha Yadav).

¶10

Key takeaways

The domestic incident report alleges that the parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law harassed the aggrieved person for bringing insufficient dowry, that complaints to the police and Panchayat were settled without improvement, that she was beaten on 18.09.2025 and sustained injuries, and that an attempt was made to kill her child; these allegations prima facie show the petitioners' involvement in domestic violence.ratio¶12
Notwithstanding the penal provisions in Sections 31 and 33 of Chapter V, the proceedings before the Magistrate under the DV Act, 2005 are predominantly of a civil nature (as laid down in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi and adopted by this Court).ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Rakesh Kainthla, J.; decision dated 21.05.2026; not approved for reporting) dismissed Cr. MMO No. 204 of 2026 whereby Jodh Singh and others (parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the aggrieved person) sought quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4 of 2026 (Jaspreet Kaur vs. Parvinder Singh, etc.) before the learned ACJM, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, arising from a domestic incident report under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Held: (i) a Court exercising inherent jurisdiction does not test the truthfulness or validity of allegations and must treat them as correct (Punit Beriwala; Maneesha Yadav); (ii) the DIR allegations — dowry-demand harassment by the in-laws, settled police/Panchayat complaints, beatings of 18.09.2025 with multiple injuries, and an attempt to kill the child — prima facie show the petitioners' involvement in domestic violence; (iii) DV Act proceedings before the Magistrate are predominantly civil in nature despite Sections 31 and 33 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi), and per Order VI CPC only facts need be pleaded, so the DIR is not bad for want of evidentiary detail; (iv) a hands-off approach governs Section 482 scrutiny of Section 12(1) applications, interference being warranted only for gross illegality or gross abuse of process; (v) the matter being pending before the Trial Court, it should be left to appreciate it (Iqbal v. State of U.P.). The observations are confined to the disposal of the petition and do not bear on the merits of the main case.

¶1

2026:HHC:18701

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 204 of 2026 Reserved on: 02.04.2026 Date of Decision: 21.05.2026

¶4

Jodh Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No.

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr Daleep Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr Lokender Kutlehira, /State Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4 of 2026, titled Jaspreet Kaur vs. Parvinder Singh, etc., pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court).

¶10

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Protection officer filed a domestic incident

¶11

¶12

2026:HHC:18701

¶13

report before the learned Trial Court, asserting that the aggrieved person was married to Parvinder as per Sikh customs. One son was born to her. Her parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law (the petitioners) started harassing her soon after the marriage for bringing insufficient dowry. She made a complaint at the Police Station, Paonta Sahib, in the year 2019. The matter was also settled by the Panchayat many times before the complaint. However, the petitioners’ behaviour did not improve. The expenses of delivering the child were borne by the aggrieved person’s parents. The petitioners promised to take care of the aggrieved person before the police, but they started harassing her in her matrimonial home. The petitioners turned her out of the matrimonial home after beating her. She reported the matter to the police and the Protection Officer. Her husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and the aggrieved person joined her husband’s company with her son. She withdrew the cases filed by her. The petitioners again started harassing her. They gave her beatings on 18.09.2025. They pushed her, and she sustained multiple injuries. An effort was made to kill the aggrieved person’s child. The Court awarded her ₹1,00,000/-. The petitioners taunted her for this

¶14

¶15

2026:HHC:18701

¶16

award. They asked for the accounts. The aggrieved person’s husband left her. He blocked her and stated that he would not reside with her. Hence, a domestic incident report was filed before the Court.

¶17

The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition asserting that the allegations made in the complaint are false. The aggrieved person had earlier filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act). She failed to appear before the Court, and the matter was dismissed by the Court for non-prosecution on 20.09.2022. The aggrieved person filed a fresh complaint instead of getting the earlier petition revived. The aggrieved person and her husband are residing separately from the petitioners. The petitioners have no concern with the domestic affairs of the aggrieved person and her husband. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner No. 1 has dispossessed the aggrieved person’s husband of his

¶19

¶20

2026:HHC:18701

¶21

property. The petitioners never resided with the aggrieved person in a shared household. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶22

I have heard Mr Daleep Chand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.

¶23

Mr Daleep Chand, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the aggrieved person had filed a false complaint. She was residing with her husband away from the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 dispossessed the aggrieved person’s husband of his property, and an advertisement to this effect was published in the newspaper. The petitioners never shared a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The ingredients of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are not fulfilled. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶24

Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State, submitted that the aggrieved person had

¶25

¶26

2026:HHC:18701

¶27

made a complaint to the protection officer, who filed a domestic incident report before the Court. The learned Trial Court is seized of the matter, and this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶28

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶29

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, that the High Court should have a hands-off approach under the DV Act and should interfere only when there is gross illegality or abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed:

¶30

“35. When it comes to the exercise of power under Section 4 82 of the CrP C in relation to an 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 to prevent acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the C rP C 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

¶31

¶32

2026:HHC:18701

¶33

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 4 8 2 of the CrP C 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.”

¶34

It was submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false. This submission will not help the respondents. The Court exercising inherent jurisdiction does not go into the validity or otherwise of the allegations and has to treat them as correct. This position was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983, wherein it was observed: -

¶35

“29. It is settled law that the power of quashing a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and while exercising this power, the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held that, save in exceptional cases where noninterference would result in a miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used routinely according to its whims or caprice.”

¶36

It was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P.,

¶37

2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, that the Court exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR cannot go into the truthfulness or

¶38

otherwise of the allegations. It was observed : -

¶39

¶40

2026:HHC:18701

¶41

“13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at their face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) .

¶42

14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC 1060 :

¶43

“ 14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of the FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23] . In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question of whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed: (SCC p. 63, para 16)

¶44

“ 16. Thus, the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would

¶45

¶46

2026:HHC:18701

¶47

show that the same is not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [ Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365 ] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents, etc. or not.

¶48

The domestic incident report specifically mentions

¶49

that the parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the aggrieved person started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. She had made various complaints to the police and Panchayat, which were settled, but their behaviour did not improve. She had filed a case under the DV Act, which was withdrawn by her at her husband’s instance. However, her parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law instigated her husband to torture her. She stated that she was beaten on 18.09.2025 and had sustained injuries. An attempt was made to kill her child. These allegations, prima facie , show the petitioners’ involvement in the domestic violence.

¶50

It was submitted that the allegations are vague. This submission will not help the petitioners. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi (supra) that

¶51

¶52

2026:HHC:18701

¶53

the proceedings under the DV Act are civil in nature. It was observed:

¶54

“28. 1 Thus, there is no doubt that, notwithstanding the penal provisions in the form of Sections 31 and 33 of Chapter V, the proceedings before the Magistrate under the DV Act, 2005, are predominantly of a civil nature.” 14. Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) requires

¶55

that only facts are required to be pleaded. In the present case, the aggrieved person has pleaded the facts regarding the harassment and the demand of dowry. The evidence by means of which the facts are to be proved is not required to be pleaded. Therefore, the domestic incident report cannot be said to be bad simply because the details of the incident with supporting evidence have not been given.

¶56

It is undisputed that the matter is pending before the Learned Trial Court. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P. , (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court, it should be left to appreciate it. It was observed:

¶57

“At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence, particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged

¶58

¶59

2026:HHC:18701

¶60

offences, we are of the view that the appellants should prefer a discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected, forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any discharge case is made out or not.”

¶61

No other point was urged.

¶62

In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

¶63

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case.

¶64

( Rakesh Kainthla ) 21^st May 2025 Judge

¶65

(ravinder)

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4 of 2026 (Jaspreet Kaur vs. Parvinder Singh, etc.) pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib should be quashed qua the petitioners.¶4
The court held
In relation to quashing applications under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach under Section 482 CrPC and interfere only where there is gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi).ratio¶9
2.
Whether, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, the Court can inquire into the truthfulness or validity of the allegations made in the domestic incident report.¶10
The court held
A Court exercising inherent jurisdiction does not go into the validity or truthfulness of the allegations and has to treat them as correct; hence the submission that the allegations against the petitioners are false does not help them (position laid down in Punit Beriwala and Maneesha Yadav).ratio¶10
3.
Whether the allegations in the domestic incident report, taken at face value, prima facie disclose the petitioners' involvement in domestic violence.¶12
The court held
The domestic incident report alleges that the parents-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law harassed the aggrieved person for bringing insufficient dowry, that complaints to the police and Panchayat were settled without improvement, that she was beaten on 18.09.2025 and sustained injuries, and that an attempt was made to kill her child; these allegations prima facie show the petitioners' involvement in domestic violence.ratio¶12
4.
Whether the domestic incident report is defective for vagueness or for not pleading the details of the incidents with supporting evidence, given the civil nature of DV Act proceedings and the pleading standard of Order VI CPC.¶13
The court held
Notwithstanding the penal provisions in Sections 31 and 33 of Chapter V, the proceedings before the Magistrate under the DV Act, 2005 are predominantly of a civil nature (as laid down in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi and adopted by this Court).ratio¶13
5.
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings when the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court.¶15
The court held
Since the matter is admittedly pending before the learned Trial Court, it should be left to appreciate the matter (following Iqbal v. State of U.P.).ratio¶15

Jodh Singh and Others v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jodh Singh and Others v. State of Hp 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

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Rajinder Singh

Sunil Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and Another

State of H.P Vs Jai Dev Deceased through Lrs Devinder Kumar and Others

Ramesh Chand Vs Jai Karan Deceased through Lrs Bimla Devi and Ors.

Ramneet Kaur alias Doli Vs State of Hp and Another

Joginder Pal Vs Virender Singh