IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1114 of 2025

Reserved on: 20.11.2025

Date of Decision: 03.12.2025.

Arush Gupta and others ...Petitioners

Versus

Shruti Bhardwaj t ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr Saurav Rattan, Advocate.

For the Respondent : None.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

i The petitioners have filed the present petition for

quashing of the complaint dated 10.6.2025, filed by the respondent (aggrieved person) under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, HP. (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 a Domestic Incident Report was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, asserting that the respondents (the present petitioners) demanded money from her on 23.4.2024. They made the allegations against her that she was suffering from a mental ailment, and they would not have solemnised the marriage between the aggrieved person and respondent No. 1 huad they earlier known about her mental ailment. They aboused and quarrelled with the aggrieved person. RespondenCt No.1 made a false allegation against the aggrieved person on 17.5.2025 that she had taken the jewellery with her. The respondents doubted the character of the aggrieved person. They harassed her for not bringing sufficient dowry and not giving Hbirth to a child. She was not being permitted to go outside the home and seek any employment. Therefore, she sought various reliefs under the DV Act.

3. Being aggrieved from the filing of the report, the respondents (the present petitioners) have filed the present petition asserting that the marriage between respondent No.1 and the aggrieved person was solemnised on 18.4.2024 at Kullu according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. The respondents had booked and paid for the rest house and hotel for the stay, boarding and lodging of the barat during the marriage ceremonies. The aggrieved person stayed in her matrimonial home for less than one month. She left the home on the pretext that she had to attend a family function at Kullu. The respondent No.1 had accompanied the aggrieved person to her parental home on 20.5.2024. The aggrieved person left for Tamil Nadu on 3.6.2024. She is not ruesiding in a domestic relationship with the respondents. Sohe has been residing separately from the respondenCts since 20.5.2024 without any reasonable cause. The allegations levelled by her are false. Respondent No.2 is 69 years old retired Government servant. Respondent No.3 is aged 70 years. The aggrieved person filed the petition to humiliate and Hharass the respondents. Respondent No.1 sent a legal notice for the restitution of the conjugal rights on 20.11.2024. The aggrieved person sent a reply through her Advocate dated 2.12.2024. She filed a false complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on 10.6.2025. The complaint is an afterthought and counterblast to the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1. The respondents had lodged an FIR on 15.10.2025 at Police Station, Sadar, Solan, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 417 of the IPC. No domestic relationship existed between the parties at the time of filing the complaint. The complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law. There is a delay of more than one year from the date of the incident. There is no evidence to support the allegations made by the aggrieved person. She never raised any grievance against any of the respondents during her stay in her matrimonial home. The continuation of the proceedings would aumount to the abuse of the process of law. Therefore, it waos prayed that the present petition be allowed and the compClaint pendi