Domestic Incident Report Cannot Supersede Substantive Complaint Under DV Act; Summons Can't Be Refused Solely Due To Omissions In DIR: Delhi High Court

"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." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 17, 2026, held that a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) cannot supersede or substitute the original complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the complaint and the DIR must be read cumulatively, and the mere absence of specific particulars in the DIR is not a valid ground to refuse issuing summons if the main complaint discloses acts of domestic violence.

The petitioner-wife had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking various reliefs, including protection and residence orders against her husband and in-laws. The Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons only to some respondents while deleting the names of two others, reasoning that the DIR lacked specific allegations against them. After the Sessions Court dismissed her appeal and upheld the Magistrate's order, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging their deletion.

The primary question before the court was whether a Domestic Incident Report can be treated in singularity as the sole basis for issuing summons or deleting respondents from the array of parties. The court was also called upon to determine if the omission of specific allegations in the DIR justifies discharging accused persons even when detailed allegations of domestic violence exist in the main complaint.

Lower Courts Acted Mechanically

The High Court observed that the lower courts had passed the impugned judgments by treating the DIR in singularity and completely ignoring the substantial allegations made by the petitioner in her substantive complaint. The court emphasized that negating the main complaint to proceed solely on the basis of the DIR independently frustrates the entire purpose and beneficial object of the DV Act.

DIR Has No Independent Legs To Stand On

Analyzing the statutory framework, Justice Banerjee noted that the DIR is merely a relevant document prepared to facilitate or assist the Magistrate. The bench categorically stated that a DIR is only required to be filed in a pending complaint and cannot stand on its own without the foundational complaint to support it.

Complaint And DIR Must Be Read Cumulatively

The court ruled that when deciding whether to issue summons, a Magistrate cannot look at the DIR in isolation. The judgment underscored that both the original application under Section 12 of the DV Act and the DIR must be taken and read in conjunction with each other, as the DIR is generated in furtherance of the allegations made in the core complaint.

Specific Allegations Outweigh Omissions In DIR

Upon perusing the main complaint, the court found that the petitioner had leveled detailed and specific allegations of verbal and emotional abuse against the deleted respondents. The court observed that these allegations squarely fell within the parameters of Section 3 of the DV Act, which defines domestic violence. The bench held that where a complaint itself discloses specific allegations constituting domestic violence, it gains utmost importance and relevance.

"As such, the mere absence/ omission of similar particulars in the DIR, cannot be a valid ground for refusing to issue summons to the respondent(s)."

DV Act Proceedings Not Strictly Criminal

In a notable legal observation, the High Court reminded that proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act in sensu stricto (in the strict sense) are not criminal in nature. The bench clarified that even after the issuance of summons, a Magistrate always retains the power to pass appropriate orders dropping the proceedings if, after evaluating the respondents' replies, it appears that no case is ultimately made out against them.

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court to the extent they deleted the specific respondents from the array of parties. Resultantly, the Magistrate was directed to issue summons to the respondents, ensuring they answer to the substantive allegations leveled in the original complaint.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2026