IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr. MMO No. 1042 of 2025.

Reserved on: 14.11.2025.

Date of Decision: 02.12.2025.

Rajnish Kumar f ...Petitioner

Versus

Poonam Dhiman ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr Rajiv Rai, Advocate.

For the Respondent : None.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing of complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), bearing Registration No. 27 of 2025, titled Poonam Dhiman vs. Rajnish Kumar, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. III, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner

as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the aggrieved person filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, asserting that she is the wife of the present petitioner/original respondent. The respondent tried to maintain physical relations with her. He abused and beat her. He doubted the aggrieved person’s character and made false allegations against her, which caused mental cruelty to her. The aggrieved person wenut to join her duties at PGI, Chandigarh. The respondent’s moother and other family members started harassing Cher for jewellery. They asked her to give them her entire salary. She told these facts to her husband, but her husband beat her. The respondent’s mother pushed the aggrieved person into the stove to kill her, but she saved herself. The Haggrieved person was residing in a rented accommodation;

however, her husband frequently visited her room and beat her.

Hence, various reliefs were sought by the aggrieved person.

3. Being aggrieved by the filing of the complaint, the present petitioner/original respondent has filed the present petition asserting that the complaint does not fulfil the ingredients of the DV Act. The incident is stated to have taken place in 2017. The aggrieved person had filed a complaint against the respondent in the year 2019, but she did not proceed further with the matter. The basic object of the DV Act is to protect women from domestic violence and not to encourage belated complaints. The allegations in the complaint are false. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the petition.

4. Mr Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the aullegations in the complaint are false. The complaint was fioled belatedly, and the learned Trial Court erred in taking itsC cognisance. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.

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

6. 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:

“35. When it comes to the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC 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 jurisdictHion under Section 482 of the CrPC 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 whil