Domestic Incident Report Cannot Supersede Specific Allegations in Section 12 DV Act Complaint for Summoning Respondents

The Petitioner married proforma respondent no. 3 on 26.12.2016.

Alleging domestic violence and a forced departure from her matrimonial home in 2019, she filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

The Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), vide order dated 08.04.2021, issued summons to the husband and parents-in-law but deleted Respondents 1 and 2 (the husband's other relatives/respondents 4 and 5 in the original complaint) from the array of parties.

This deletion was based on the ground that no specific allegations were found against them in the Domestic Incident Report (DIR).

The District Sessions Judge upheld this order in appeal on 21.10.2021, noting the absence of specific claims in the DIR and the delay in filing the complaint.

The Court applied Section 3 of the DV Act, which provides an expansive definition of "domestic violence," including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse.

Explanation II to Section 3 mandates that the "overall facts and circumstances" must be considered to determine if domestic violence occurred.

The court emphasized that while a DIR is a statutory requirement to assist the Magistrate, it is supplementary to the application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act.

The High Court found that the lower courts acted mechanically by treating the DIR in "singularity" and ignoring the detailed allegations in the Petitioner’s complaint.

The Court clarified that a DIR is a "cyclostyle typed format" and cannot be treated as an "encyclopaedia" of the victim's grievances.

Upon reviewing the Petitioner's complaint, the High Court noted specific instances of verbal abuse, emotional humiliation regarding dowry, and physical threats attributed to the deleted respondents.

The Court reasoned that since the complaint contained specific particulars constituting domestic violence under Section 3, the mere omission of those details in the summary DIR did not justify refusing to issue summons.

Furthermore, since DV Act proceedings are not strictly criminal, the Magistrate retains the power to discharge respondents later if the evidence is found insufficient after their response.

The High Court set aside the judgment dated 21.10.2021 and the order dated 08.04.2021 to the extent that they deleted Respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the array of parties and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to issue summons to Respondent nos. 1 and 2 (respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the original complaint) upon the Petitioner taking requisite steps.