C528/866/2025 of SHASHI PRAKASH SHARMA Vs MONA SHARMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 866 of 2025

Shashi Prakash Sharma

......Applicant

Versus

Smt. Mona Sharma

…..Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

This is an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), whereby the Applicant, Shashi Prakash Sharma, has prayed to quash impugned judgement and order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the 1[st] Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2024 in Shashi Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand & Another as well as judgement and order dated 29.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/5[th] Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1629 of 2021, Smt. Mona Sharma v. Shashi Prakash Sharma & another, and to dismiss the petition filed by the Respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as “the DV Act”).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the Applicant and Respondent no. 2 are legally wedded spouses. Their marriage was solemnized on 01.12.1999 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. From the said wedlock, son named Shaurya was born. The relationship between the parties

2025:UHC:5942

deteriorated over time, and the Respondent-wife filed proceedings under the DV Act against the Applicant alleging cruelty, economic abuse, emotional harassment, and unlawful eviction from the matrimonial home. The said proceedings are presently pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

3. In the year 2021, the Respondent-wife once again instituted proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act by filing Criminal Misc. Case No. 1629 of 2021 before the learned ACJM/5th Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act. By judgment dated 29.07.2024, the learned Magistrate allowed her application partly and directed the Applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, and to return the stridhan. protection order was also issued under Section 18 of the Act.

4. The Applicant preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, which was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, by judgment dated 16.04.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Respondent has grossly abused the legal process by initiating repetitive and vexatious litigation. It was contended that prior proceedings between the parties, including petition under the DV Act (Misc. Case No. 1466 of 2010), were disposed of based on compromise dated 10.02.2012, following which the parties resumed cohabitation. However, the Respondent

2025:UHC:5942

voluntarily left the company of the Applicant in April 2019 without cause and has now concocted allegations contrary to the agreed terms.

7. It is argued that the learned Magistrate and Appellate court have failed to appreciate the material placed on record, including medical documents indicating the Respondent’s long-standing mental health issues, her prior withdrawal of matrimonial litigation, and absence of any recent incident of violence. It is further submitted that the findings of domestic violence are unsustainable in light of the absence of proximity or contact since 2019.

8. It is also urged that the Applicant, being man of limited means, is financially incapable of bearing the burden of maintenance and compensation imposed. Reliance was placed on ITRs and bank statements to demonstrate low income. The impugned orders, according to the Applicant, are perverse, erroneous, and passed in violation of judicial discipline.

9. Learned counsel for the Respondent opposed the petition and submitted that both courts below have concurrently found that the Applicant failed in his duties as husband and subjected the Respondent to sustained emotional, economic and physical neglect. It was contended that the compromise dated 10.02.2012 was violated by the Applicant and the repeated instances of neglect and denial of sustenance clearly fall within the ambit of domestic violence.

10. Learned counsel for the State supported the orders passed by the courts below and submitted that no case for quashing is made out, particularly when findings have been returned based on evidence led by both parties.

11. At the heart of the present petition lies the question of whether the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provision in pari materia with the corresponding Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ought to be exercised to quash concurrent findings of fact and the orders passed by the two courts below in proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

12. It is settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the High Court are extraordinary in nature and intended to be used sparingly, with great caution and only in cases where the judicial conscience of the Court is satisfied that there is either (i) manifest abuse of the process of court or (ii) that the ends of justice require interference. This provision does not confer any appellate or revisional jurisdiction, and this Court is not to act as second forum of appeal to revisit or re-examine the evidenceunless there exists patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The inherent power is not intended to serve as substitute for the statutory remedies available under the law.

13. The Applicant contends that the Respondent's application was not maintainable since there was no subsisting domestic relationship after 2019 and that there was no cause of action to invoke provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. However, this Court notes that the parties admittedly resumed cohabitation pursuant to compromise dated 10.02.2012, and continued living together at Haridwar until April 2019, when the Respondent allegedly left the matrimonial home. Thus, the existence of domestic relationship, cohabitation in shared household, and subsequent separation are all matters that are either admitted or established through documents and oral testimony.

2025:UHC:5942

14. The Respondent alleged that she was ousted without her belongings, denied maintenance, subjected to emotional and economic abuse, and was left with no option but to reside with her elderly parents in Dehradun. These claims were not bald or vague; they were supported by sworn testimony, cross-examination, and contemporaneous documents, including her affidavit of income and status, filed in accordance with the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha. The learned trial court rightly appreciated that economic and emotional neglect, especially in the backdrop of prior reconciliation and abandonment, amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act.

15. It is also pertinent that the Appellate court re-evaluated the findings and upheld them with detailed reasoning. No perversity, bias, or misapplication of law is shown in either order. The allegations made in the petition, including references to the Respondent’s alleged mental illness, prior litigation, and her withdrawal of matrimonial cases, have been evaluated by the courts below and do not, by themselves, disprove the core allegations of neglect and financial abandonment.

16. Another issue pertains to whether the Respondent was subjected to domestic violence, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. On this aspect, the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, to conclude that the Respondent was subjected to repeated acts of physical, verbal and emotional abuse, coupled with economic neglect and social humiliation. The aggrieved person specifically deposed about being denied basic care during illness, being sent away to her parental home without any means of subsistence, and being deprived of access to her son. Her allegations were corroborated by her father, who also entered the witness box. These statements remained consistent and credible during cross-examination.

17. This Court is also constrained to observe that several issues raised by the Applicant in the present petition, such as the legality of the Respondent's application, the burden of past compromise, and the sufficiency of evidence, were already raised and adjudicated upon in the statutory appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. Permitting the Applicant to relitigate the same issues in veiled quashing petition would amount to judicial impropriety and abuse of process.

18. The power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is not intended to serve as “third-tier appellate remedy.” Unless the order challenged is shown to be patently absurd, illegal, or shocking to judicial conscience, the High Court must refrain from interfering. The findings herein do not disclose any exceptional circumstance or miscarriage of justice. No procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice, or want of jurisdiction is shown. Therefore, no case is made out for invoking the inherent powers of this Court.

19. This Court finds that the learned trial court has considered all relevant aspects, including the socio-economic status of the parties, their conduct, the pleadings, and the evidence. The reasoning given is cogent and consistent with the object and purpose of the Act. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been shown so as to warrant interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Applicant has failed to establish any

2025:UHC:5942

manifest illegality, perversity, or abuse of process in the impugned judgments.

The concurrent findings of the learned Magistrate and the

Appellate Court are based on evidence and do not warrant interference. The present petition appears to be an indirect attempt to reopen concluded issues, which is impermissible under the scope of Section 528 BNSS.

Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Applicationisdismissed. The judgments dated 29.07.2024 and 16.04.2025 passed by the courts below are upheld.

No order as to costs.

Dated: 18.06.2025

Ashish Naithani, J.