Bilaspur : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has ruled that domestic violence proceedings cannot continue when the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) is vague, lacks mandatory details, and appears to have been filed as a pressure tactic in a matrimonial dispute. The court held that such proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of law.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal allowed a writ petition filed by a husband and his family members, quashing the domestic violence proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Surajpur. The Bench set aside the Domestic Incident Report dated 19 October 2022, the application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Magistrate’s order refusing to drop the case.
The case arose out of a marriage solemnised on 27 June 2018 in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. Two sons were born from the wedlock, now aged six and four years. Over time, disputes arose between the spouses, eventually leading to separation and multiple legal proceedings in different jurisdictions. The High Court noted that the core dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature and largely centred on custody of the minor children.
According to the petitioners, the wife repeatedly insisted that the elder child be given in adoption to her sister, who is separated and childless. When the husband refused, relations deteriorated further. The wife later left the matrimonial home and, despite a brief return after intervention, disputes continued. The petitioners alleged that the domestic violence case filed in Surajpur was intended to exert pressure in the ongoing custody dispute.
The husband approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the Domestic Incident Report was entirely vague and devoid of material particulars. He contended that the report did not mention any specific dates, places, or manner of alleged domestic violence, nor did it attribute any act to any particular family member. It was also argued that the wife had suppressed information about other pending litigations while filing her application under the DV Act.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the wife argued that she had been subjected to cruelty, physical assault, and dowry demands after marriage. It was alleged that the husband had forcibly taken away the elder child and that the wife had been separated from him for several years. It was further claimed that due to local influence exercised by the husband’s family in Ballia, she was compelled to initiate proceedings in Chhattisgarh.
After examining the record, the High Court found that the Domestic Incident Report failed to meet the mandatory requirements under Section 9(1)(b) of the DV Act. The Bench observed that the allegations were bald and omnibus, with no specific incident, injury, or dowry demand described. Such deficiencies, the court held, go to the root of the matter and vitiate the initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Act.
The court also noted that the wife had initiated multiple proceedings in different forums and had selectively disclosed facts, which strengthened the inference of mala fide intent. The criminal process, the Bench said, cannot be used as a tool for harassment or to gain an advantage in collateral matrimonial or custody disputes.
On the question of maintainability, the High Court relied on the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of India in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025), reiterating that High Courts can exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 226 of the Constitution to quash DV Act proceedings in cases of gross illegality or injustice, while exercising due caution.
The Bench also found the JMFC’s order dated 26 November 2024 to be unsustainable, noting that although multiple grounds challenging the maintainability of the proceedings were raised, the Magistrate had considered only one and ignored the others.
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the High Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and all impugned proceedings were set aside. The court clarified that its order would not prevent either party from pursuing appropriate remedies before a competent civil or family court in accordance with law.