IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 958 of 2025 Reserved on: 11.11.2025 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025 Ashok Kumar Ranga & Anr. ...Petitioners Verstus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No :

For the Petitioners Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.

g :

For the respondents No. Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, 1 /State Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of proceedings in DV Act 10/2022 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kinnaur at Reckong Peo under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No.2/aggrieved person made an application under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the DV Act for various reliefs. It was asserted that the marriage between the aggrieved person and Ashok Kumar was solemnised on 22.10.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Reckong Peo. Respondent No.2 prepared the list of articles during the marriage, but this list was snatched, and the aggrieved person was asked to tell her relatives to prepare the details. The agghrieved person resided with the respondents in a shared ghousehold in Chandigarh. She was asked to hand over her ijewellery to respondent No.1 by saying that a lot of jewellery can result in murder and should be kept in the locker. When the aggrieved person handed over the jewellery, she was taunted that she was taking the photographs and preparing the list as if the respondents were thieves. The respondents continuously harassed the aggrieved person by repeatedly taunting her. The aggrieved person furnished the details of the various incidents in her application running into 47 paragraphs. The aggrieved person was turned out of her matrimonial home. She filed a divorce petition. Respondent No. 1 also filed a petition for restitution of the conjugal rights. Respondent No.1 also threatened the petitioner by saying that he had sent her photographs, and in case of further comp laints, he would send the other photographs as well. Shoe was subjected to domestic violence. Hence, the petition was filed to seek various reliefs.

3. Being aggrieved by the petition filed by the aggrieved persons, the original respondents have approached this Court by filing the present petition for quashing the petition and the consequential proceedings arising out of it. It has been asserted thaht several proceedings are pending between the parties. The grespondents bought land/orchard in the name of the aggrieved iperson and paid ₹38.00 lakhs out of the savings and retirement benefits. The proceedings have been initiated to coerce the respondents to give the land to the aggrieved persons. Various developmental activities were carried out in the orchard. It is valued at ₹1,28,90,357/-. The respondents have lodged an FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Miscellaneous Applications are pending before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana regarding the FIR. The aggrieved person filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur, who directed the registration of the FIR. The respondents filed a petition for quashing of the FIR, which was allowed. Respondents No.2 and 3, being the parents-in-law, have no ro le to play and were maliciously dragged into the litigaotion. The complaint filed by the aggrieved person is a count erblast to the complaint made against her. The aggrieverd person had failed to demonstrate continuation of a domestic relationship or any threats or violence. The dispute between the parties is related to the land. The aggrieved person never cohabited with the respondents No.2 and 3 after her marriage. There is an ab