##PAGE1##

[203] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-5032-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 06.04.2026

Kuldeep Chauhan and others …Petitioners versus

Tanuja and another ….Respondents

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. (Through V.C.)

Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The present revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the summoning of the petitioners in a complaint filed under Sections 12(1), 18, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as the

Order dated 17.08.2019.

[2] The petitioners earlier approached this Court by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The same was disposed off, observing as

under:-

“xxx xxx xxx

[3] The present petition is disposed of being not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to seek alternative remedy as per law, in terms of order dated 30.11.2023 in Gautam Singal vs. Anju Singal, CRM-M-58023-2023; the order dated 18.05.2024 in Varun Saini vs. Pooja Saini and others, CRR-220-2024 passed by this Bench, and order dated 24.04.2023 in Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and others vs. State of Punjab and others, CRM-M-19553-2023 passed

by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court.

RAJNEESH SHARMA

2026.04.10 17:34 xxx xxx xxx”

I agree to specified portions of this document

CR-5032-2024 (O&M) -2-

[3] The order passed by Single Bench in ‘Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and others (supra) was referred for consideration before a Larger Bench. The Division Bench in ‘Hemant Bhagat and others versus Prekshi Sood Bhagat’, Civil Revision No.3407 of 2024 vide Order dated 25.10.2024 held that Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and others (supra) does not lay down the correct

position of law.

[4] An aggrieved person is well within his/her right to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for redressal of his grievances emanating from the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act, observing as

under:-

“32. As a sequel of discussions held hereinabove, the questions referred by the Single Bench are answered as under:-

i) Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. is applicable qua proceedings arising out of complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. The only exception is the cases where provisions of the Act of 2005 have been invoked in proceedings pending before Civil Court or Family Court.

ii) In view of answer to question No.(i), there is no need to answer question No.(ii).

iii) The power of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are subject to self-restraint. The same can neither be curtailed by statute nor by judicial order. In terms of dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar’s case (supra) and Surya Dev Rai’s case (supra), Article 227 is part of basic structure of the Constitution of India and is even

beyond Constitutional amendment.”

[5] In view thereof, this Court finds that the present revision petition needs to be disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to seek revival of the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. CRM-M-42895-

RAJNEESH SHARMA2019.

2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document

CR-5032-2024 (O&M) -3-

[6] Disposed off accordingly.

[7] The petitioner are granted two weeks’ time to move an

appropriate application seeking revival of the petition.

[8] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands

disposed off.

(PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

06.04.2026 ‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA

2026.04.10 17:34 I agree to specified portions of this document