The Delhi High Court has held that the mere absence of specific allegations against a respondent in a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) cannot be a ground to refuse summons in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 667]

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that a DIR is only intended to facilitate and assist the Magistrate and cannot substitute or supersede the original complaint filed under Section 12 of the DV Act.

“The DIR, no doubt, is a relevant document, prepared to facilitate/ assist the Magistrate, however, it can neither substitute nor supersede the original complaint/application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act... both, the complaint and the DIR, have to be cumulatively taken/read in conjunction with each other and not in isolation,” the Court said.

The Court made the observation while allowing a petition filed by a woman challenging orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the appellate court deleting her husband's relatives from the array of parties in a domestic violence complaint.

Petitioner had filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking protection, residence and maintenance orders after matrimonial disputes arose following her marriage in December 2016.

The Magistrate issued summons only to some of the respondents and deleted two family members from the proceedings, observing that no specific allegations had been made against them in the DIR. The appellate court upheld the order.

Before the High Court, Petitioner contended that the courts below had mechanically relied on the DIR and ignored specific allegations contained in the complaint. It was argued that the DIR, being a standard format requiring answers to specific questions, could not be treated as an exhaustive account of the allegations.

Accepting the contention, the High Court held that both the courts below had proceeded on an erroneous basis by treating the DIR in isolation and ignoring the averments in the complaint.

The Court noted that Explanation II to Section 3 of the DV Act requires courts to consider the “overall facts and circumstances” while determining whether domestic violence has been made out.

“It cannot be ignored that the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act in sensu stricto are not criminal in nature,” the Court observed, adding that even after issuance of summons, the Magistrate is free to pass appropriate orders if no case is ultimately made out against any respondent.

Finding that the complaint contained detailed allegations against the deleted respondents which fell within the scope of “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the Act, the Court restored them as parties to the proceedings.

Appearance: Mr. Varun Mittal and Mr. Govil Upadhaya, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Sujeet Beniwal, Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Advs. for Respondents

Case Title: V v. P

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 667

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1132/2022

Click here to read order