CRL.M.C./7248/2026 of PAYAL SONI & ORS. Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. on 28 September 2026

O R D E R

% 28.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), seeking quashing of the notice dated 25.07.2026 and proceedings in CC No. 1604/2025, titled “Shravya v. Gaurav Soni & Ors.”, arising out of an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “DV Act”), pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, qua the Petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the proceedings against the Petitioners deserve to be quashed as there are no specific or prima facie allegations disclosing their individual involvement in any act of domestic violence.

4. It is further submitted that the allegations against the Petitioners are vague and omnibus and lack material particulars regarding the date, time, place, nature of the alleged acts or the specific role attributed to each Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioners were residing separately and had no continuing presence or involvement in the day-to-day matrimonial affairs of Respondent No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that, even upon a complete reading of the complaint, no specific case under the DV Act is disclosed against the Petitioners and that continuation of the proceedings against them would serve no useful purpose.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

7. The principal contention of the petitioners that they were residing separately and had no continuing presence or involvement in the day-to-day matrimonial affairs of Respondent No. 2 cannot be accepted. Mere separate residence or absence of continuous presence in the matrimonial household, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for quashing the proceedings, particularly when the allegations in the complaint, on a prima facie reading, disclose their involvement. The veracity of such allegations is a matter to be tested at trial.

8. Upon perusal of the complaint, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the allegations against the Petitioners are, on their face, wholly vague or omnibus. The complaint contains specific allegations attributing particular acts and conduct to the individual respondents (herein petitioners).

At this stage, this Court is not required to assess the veracity or evidentiary worth of such allegations. Whether the allegations are ultimately substantiated is a matter of trial and appreciation of evidence.

9. Consequently, the present case does not warrant interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. The reliance placed upon the judgments cited by the petitioners is distinguishable on the facts of the present case.

10. The Petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to raise all their contentions before the learned Trial Court.

11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/rm