Allahabad High Court
Ashu Jain vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125764 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11780 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashu Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shruti Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2117 of 2018 (Smt. Ashu Jain Vs. Sri Ashu Jain and 10 others), under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)/FTC Shamli.
3. The case of the applicant is that the applicant happens to be the husband of the opposite party No.2, marriage whereof was solemnized on 09.12.2024. It is alleged that a complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came to be lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 24.03.2015 with an allegation that the opposite party No. 2 was subjected to domestic violence at the end of the applicant. Pursuant thereto, an ex-parte order came to be passed on 20.07.2015 for according interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2, the applicant herein preferred an application for recalling the order dated 20.07.2015 and 18.08.2015. However, according to the applicant, the said application is still pending. As according to the applicant, the complaint under Domestic Violence Act was not maintainable and it was bound to fail so an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 113 of the Cr.P.C. came to be preferred by the applicant which was rejected on 04.03.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the proceedings were also initiated in Case Crime No. 503 of 2014 and Case No. 8015/9 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC in which the family members of the applicant in Application U/S 482 No. 33205 of 2015 were granted protection while allowing the application on 09.03.2016. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that falsity in the claim of the opposite party No.2 in the fact that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. preferred by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant in Case No. 244/11 of 2015, the claim set up by the opposite party No. 2 was negated. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that despite the fact that a recall application had been preferred on 18.08.2015 for recalling the order dated 20.07.2015 granting benefits to the opposite party No. 2 but till the same has not been decided and now recovery proceedings in the form of warrants have been issued. In nutshell the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the present proceeding is nothing but a grossest misuse of process of law undermining the legal principles.
4. Learned AGA while countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings by way of the complaint under Domestic Violence Act is pending since 2015 and the applicant, as per the own saying, has submitted on recall application for recording of the order dated 20.07.2015 and 18.08.2015 and further the applicant preferred application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 113 of the Cr.P.C. came to be rejected, thus, it is for the applicant to contest the said proceedings and to press for the reliefs as claimed herein.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
6. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, proceedings under Domestic Violence Act stood initiated by the opposite party No. 2 on 24.03.2015 and an order came to be passed on 20.07.2015 by the court below according maintenance/ relief against which the applicant claims to have preferred a recall application on 18.08.2015 which is pending. Apart from the same, it is also the case of the applicant that the applicant has also preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 113 of the Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected on 04.03.2024. Since once an order granting benefits to the opposite party No. 2 is already there and as per the own saying of the applicant, the applicant has preferred a recall application and the same, as per the further saying of the applicant, has not been decided then it is for the applicant to press the same. The orders which the applicant claim to have passed against it, is dated 20.07.2015 and the present application has been presented before this Court in the month of November, 2024. Approximately, nine years have passed, thus, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere at this stage.
7. However, looking into the stand taken by the applicant that the recall application dated 18.08.2015 is pending for recalling the order dated 20.07.2015. In the interest of justice, thus, it is for open for the applicant to press the said application while pleading urgency regarding the issuance of the recovery warrants and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the said application if maintainable under the provisions of laws and not decided till date shall be decided expeditiously looking into the gravity of the claim set up by the applicant.
8. Nonetheless, it is always open for the applicant to contest the said proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds which would be dealt with in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2025 A. Prajapati