* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 09^th December, 2025 Pronounced on: 10th March, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 297/2021, CRL.M.A. 1531/2021 & CRL.M.A.

6072/2021

1. SH. SANDEEP PATHAK

2. SH. JAYANT PATHAK

3. MS. HEMLATA PATHAK All R/o BD Complex, Pathak Bhawan, Ranikhet, District- Almora, Uttarakhand - 263645.

.....Petitioners Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr.

Chinmaya K. Bhatt and Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocates.

Versus LALITA TIWARI R/o House No. 41, Block - 1, Pocket- 5, 1^st Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi- 110085. .....Respondent Through: Respondent in person.

CRL.M.C. 485/2021

1. SH. SANDEEP PATHAK

2. SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR PATHAK

4. SH. JAYANT PATHAK

4. MS. HEMLATA All R/o BD Complex, Pathak Bhawan, Ranikhet, District- Almora, Uttarakhand - 263645.

.....Petitioners Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr.

Chinmaya K. Bhatt and Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocates.

Versus

1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Through Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal)

Delhi High Court Sher Shah Marg, New Delhi - 110003.

Email address dhcprosecutiondelhipolice@qmail.com Contact No. 9891919168

2. SHO, P.S. KAILASH NATH KATJU MARG Dr. K.N. Katju Marg, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi - 110085.

3. LALITA TIWARI R/o House No. 41, Block - 1, Pocket- 5, 1^st Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi- 110085.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State.

Ms. Lalita Tiwari in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The aforesaid two Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 have been filed on behalf of the Petitioners seeking quashing of the Complaint Case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “DV Act”) and FIR No. 252/2013 dated 25.06.2013, P.S. KN Katju Marg under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief background is that the Petitioner No.1, Sandeep Pathak and the Respondent/Complainant, Lalita Tiwari got married on 25.01.2005 at Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand, as per Hindu rites and customs. Even though it was mutually agreed that after marriage, the couple would reside at the Petitioner No.1’s house in Ranikhet, District Almora, Uttarakhand, but the Complainant, soon found it difficult to adjust in the small place like Ranikhet, being a girl brought up in Delhi. During her stay of barely 6 days, from 25.01.2005 to 30.01.2005, her behaviour was strange. Despite sincere efforts by the Petitioners to make her comfortable, she remained adamant and refused to discuss the matter with family members. Consequently, the Petitioner No. 1 escorted the Respondent to her parental home, in Delhi.

3. The Respondent/Complainant came intermittently to Ranikhet, in second week of June, 2005 for one week, but again stated that she did not wish to live in a village with those villagers and insisted on returning to Delhi and asked the Petitioner No. 1 to live there. He expressed his inability to relocate and requested her to stay.

4. On 20.06.2005, the Petitioner No.1 accompanied her to Delhi and requested her parents to intervene. They declined, stating that she had always behaved similarly. That night, the Respondent allegedly threatened to commit suicide and falsely implicate the Petitioner, if he complained about her conduct to her parents. Distressed by this conduct, the Petitioner No. 1 returned alone to Ranikhet, hoping time would improve the situation.

5. In February 2006, she visited Ranikhet again, but her conduct remained hostile. In December 2006, the Petitioner No. 1 visited the Respondent in her house in Rohini, Delhi seeking reconciliation, but she allegedly abused and ill-treated him.

6. The Respondent continuously pressurized the Petitioner No. 1 to relocate permanently to Delhi and allegedly misbehaved with his family members, to compel him to shift. Due t