The Chhattisgarh High Court held that Domestic Violence proceedings founded on a vague Domestic Incident Report lacking mandatory particulars under the DV Act amount to an abuse of law and quashed the proceedings pending before the Magistrate.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHHATTISGARH: The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that Domestic Violence proceedings based on a vague and bald Domestic Incident Report (DIR), lacking mandatory particulars under Section 9 of the DV Act, amount to an abuse of the process of law, especially when used as a pressure tactic in matrimonial and child custody disputes.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose out of a matrimonial discord between the husband (Petitioner No.1) and wife (Respondent No.2), married on 27 June 2018 at Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. Two minor sons aged 6 and 4 years were born from the wedlock.
According to the petitioners:
- The wife persistently insisted that the elder child be given up for adoption to her sister.
- Upon refusal, she allegedly left the matrimonial home and initiated multiple litigations in different jurisdictions.
- Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were filed at Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, allegedly as a counter-blast to a custody dispute.
Aggrieved, the husband and his family approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the Domestic Incident Report (DIR), DV proceedings, and the Magistrate’s order refusing to quash the case.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether a petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act?
- Whether a vague and omnibus Domestic Incident Report sustains DV proceedings?
- Whether DV proceedings can be quashed when used as a pressure tactic in matrimonial and custody disputes?
Arguments Presented
Petitioners’ Submissions
- The dispute was purely civil and matrimonial, revolving around child custody.
- The Domestic Incident Report dated 19.10.2022 was vague, bald, and devoid of material particulars, failing to mention dates, places, specific acts of cruelty and attribution of acts to any petitioner
- Mandatory requirements under Section 9(1)(b) of the DV Act were not complied with.
- The wife suppressed material facts regarding other pending litigations.
- Reliance was placed on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158) to establish maintainability under Section 482 CrPC.
Respondent’s Submissions
- The wife alleged continuous cruelty, dowry demands, and physical violence.
- It was argued that the husband forcibly separated her from her elder child.
- Due to the alleged political influence of the husband’s family, she was compelled to file proceedings at Surajpur.
Court’s Analysis
Relying on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi (2025), the Court held that:
“High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings emanating from an application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, though with caution and circumspection.”
Thus, the petition was held maintainable.
The Court found the DIR to be fundamentally defective, observing:
“A bare perusal of the impugned Domestic Incident Report reveals that the same is conspicuously vague and bereft of material particulars.”
The Court noted that the DIR failed to disclose any essential particulars necessary to sustain proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. It did not mention the date, time, or place of the alleged incidents, nor did it describe the nature of injury or mental cruelty allegedly suffered by the respondent.
Further, the report was silent on any specific dowry demand and did not attribute any overt act to any particular petitioner.
Such non-compliance with Section 9(1)(b) of the DV Act was held to vitiate the very initiation of proceedings.
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court held that:
- The DV proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide intent
- The criminal process was being used as a pressure tactic in a custody dispute
- Suppression of material facts disentitled the respondent to equitable relief
The Court categorically observed:
“The criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for harassment or to secure an advantage in collateral proceedings.”
The High Court also found the order dated November 26, 2024, passed by the JMFC, Surajpur, to be arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court observed that although multiple grounds were raised by the petitioners to challenge the maintainability of the proceedings, the Magistrate considered only one ground, completely ignoring the others.
Such selective consideration of issues, without addressing all the grounds urged, was held to reflect non-application of mind, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and:
- Quashed the Domestic Incident Report and DV application dated 19.10.2022
- Set aside all proceedings pending before the JMFC, Surajpur
- Quashed the Magistrate’s order dated 26.11.2024
However, liberty was granted to both parties to pursue appropriate remedies before civil or Family Courts.
Headnote
Where the Domestic Incident Report is vague, lacks material particulars required under Section 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the proceedings are initiated with mala fide intent or as a pressure tactic in matrimonial disputes, the continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Case Title:
Shri Prakash Singh & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another
WPCR No. 433 of 2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Broken Marriages