High Courts should adopt a restrained 'hands-off' approach when considering quashing petitions under the DV Act, treating allegations as true at the prima facie stage, as these proceedings are predominantly civil in nature and intended as welfare legislation.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the proceedings in case No. DV Act/64/2025, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Palampur, District Kangra, 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).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainants filed a complaint under sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Wo.men from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) before the learned Trial Court. It was asserted that complainant No.1 (Suruchi) is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. The marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 2022 as per Hindu rites and customs. The resporndents started harassing the complainant without any reasonable cause. They did not pay her any money to meet her daily expenses. They beat, abused, taunted and harassed the complainant. Complainant No.1 tolerated their behaviour with the hope that the respondents would improve with time, but in vain. The respondents taunted complainant No.1 by saying what dowry was provided to her by H her parents and relatives. Her jewellery was kept by the respondents, and she had to ask for the jewellery to attend the marriages. Respondent No. 3 did not provide a mangalsutra to complainant No.1, which is a symbol of marriage. Respondent No.1 used to consume liquor and give beatings to complainant No.1 on the instigation of respondents No. 2 and 3. They taunted complainant No.1 for not giving birth to children. Therefore, a petition was filed seeking various reliefs.

3. Being aggrieved by the filing of the petition, the respondents have filed the present petition asserting that complainant No.1 filed a false and malicioufs complaint to harass the respondents. The respondents are residing separately from complainant No.1, and they have never shared any household with her. The complaint does not disclose any specific act of domestic violence. The allegations are vague. The complaint was filed as a counterblast to the criminal complaint filed by the respondents against the complainant about the removal of the jewellery and a civil suit for the recovery of the friendly loan of ₹2,70,000/-. Complainant No.1 reside in her place of employment and occasionally visited her matrimonial home. The allegations in the complaint, even if accepted as correct, do not constitute any domestic violence. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Lokender Kutlehira, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/Stat.e

5. Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the contents off the complaint filed before the learned Trial Court do not disclose any domestic violence. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. False allegations were made against the petitioners as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the respondents. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court be quashed. He relied upon the judg