AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 2.
By this application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceeding of M.R. (D.V.) Case No. 115/2025, filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter, “the D.V. Act”, pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Hailakandi, against the petitioners.
The petitioners have also challenged the order, dated 01.09.2025, passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), No. 2, Haailakandi, by which, the learned Court had issued notice to the petitioners.
Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal of the complaint petition filed under the D.V. Act shows that the complainant had claimed all her reliefs against the petitioner No. 1. i.e., her husband.
Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the reliefs sought for under Sections 18/19/20/21/22 of the D.V. Act, are only against the petitioner No. 1, i.e. husband of the complainant.
Mr. Mahanta further stated that petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively of the complainant and he submits that there are no specific allegation mentioned under the D.V. Act in the complaint against the petitioner Nos.2,3 & 4.
Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/ complainant submits that there was a period during the married life of the informant when she resided with the petitioner’s parents i.e. petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and therefore, the residence of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 also has to be regarded as a shared household within the meaning of the D.V. Act.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that, although the husband of the informant is the petitioner No. 1 and he is not pressing the present application vis-à-vis the petitioner No. 1, therefore, learned counsel for the respondent also does not wish to address the court with regard to the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner No. 1 i.e. husband. However, the remaining respondents being necessary parties to the proceedings, in the absence of whom, any order affecting the said parties cannot be passed and that is why the proceedings as against them cannot be quashed.
Responding to the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner No. 2 is a cancer patient and all the petitioners, barring the petitioner No. 1 are aged persons, it is submitted that their presence in the court on every date is not necessary and in the event, any application for dispensing with their attendance is submitted, the learned court below would certainly consider the same favourably.
As regards the point of maintainability, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi –Vs- Vidhi Rawal, reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1158 wherein it has been held that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (6 and 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings, emanating from the application under Section 12 (1) of the D.V. Act, pending before the court of any learned Magistrate.
In response thereto, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has pointed out that in the same decision, it has been held that considering the object of the D.V. Act, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12 (1) of the D.V. Act, and normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice. Therefore, the present case is not a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as the present case is not a case of gross illegality or injustice.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in Achin Gupta –Vs.- State of Haryana and another, reported in 2025 3 SCC 756 and Kashan Kausar @ Sonam and others –Vs. the State of Bihar and others, reported in 2022 6 SCC 599 in support of his prayer for quashing of the proceedings, but the aforesaid cases relate to quashing of FIR and charge sheet in regular criminal cases, whereas the proceedings under the D.V. Act are of a quasi-criminal nature and no penal consequences are to be faced by the respondents.
In view of the above discussions, this court declines to exercise its inherent powers to close the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate. However, it is provided that in the event of any application for dispensing with the regular appearance of the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is filed before learned Trial Court, the same shall be duly considered by the learned Magistrate. It is also expected that the proceedings will be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of communication of this order.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.