When a woman files a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Protection Officer's Domestic Incident Report usually follows a standard form — and standard forms compress. In Vandana Aggarwal v. Pratik Goyal & Ors., CRL.M.C. 1132/2022, decided on 17 July 2026, the Delhi High Court (Justice Saurabh Banerjee) considered whether a Magistrate could drop two of the husband's family members from the case because the DIR recorded no specific allegations against them, even though the complaint itself did. The Court's answer: no. The DIR must be read with the complaint, not instead of it.
The problem the case addresses
The DV Act builds a two-document intake. The aggrieved person presents an application under Section 12 setting out the domestic relationship and the acts of domestic violence; the Protection Officer prepares the Domestic Incident Report in the statutory form. The two serve different functions — the application is the party's pleading, the DIR is the machinery's structured record — but because the DIR arrives in a familiar printed format, trial courts sometimes treat it as the measure of the case. That is what happened here: the complaint set out instances of abuse, taunting and dowry-related humiliation attributed to the two family members, but the DIR's columns said little about them, and both the Magistrate and the appellate court took the DIR as decisive.
What the High Court held
The DIR is a supporting document
It has no independent standing in a pending complaint. It can neither substitute nor supersede the original complaint, and the two must be read together when the court decides whom to summon.
Absence in the DIR is not absence of a case
Where the Section 12 application itself sets out allegations falling within the definition of domestic violence in Section 3, the lack of corresponding particulars in the DIR is no ground to refuse summons.
The DIR here was not even silent
The Court noted that the DIR's section on verbal and emotional abuse in fact mentioned all the respondents in connection with insults and ridicule over dowry — underlining how thin the basis for deletion was.
Protective statute, protective reading
The lower courts' approach, the Court held, frustrated the DV Act's purpose. A remedial statute for women facing violence in the household cannot be narrowed by the formatting of an intake form.
Summoning is not condemnation
The judgment is equally instructive for respondents. Because Section 12 proceedings are civil in character, being summoned is not the equivalent of being charged with an offence. The respondents' answer to the allegations comes next: replies, affidavits and, where sought, discharge from the array if the material discloses nothing against them. The decision moves the filter from the summoning stage — where only a prima facie reading of the complaint and DIR together is involved — to the stage where the court actually has both sides' material. For family members of the husband who find themselves named, the working consequence is that the contest over their continuance in the case is fought on the complaint's specific allegations, not on the DIR's brevity.
Practice pointers
For the aggrieved person: plead specifically in the Section 12 application itself — dates, acts and the role of each respondent — and do not rely on the Protection Officer's form to carry the case. If the DIR omits material allegations, point the Magistrate to the complaint and to this judgment. For respondents seeking deletion: the route is to demonstrate that the complaint itself, read as a whole, attributes nothing to the particular respondent that falls within Section 3 — an argument about the pleading, not about the DIR. And for both sides: orders on summoning are appealable under Section 29, but as this case shows, the appellate court must apply the same complaint-first reading.
Note: this article summarises a judgment of the High Court of Delhi for general information. It is not legal advice, and it does not relate to any matter handled by this chamber.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Domestic Incident Report?
The DIR is a report in the prescribed form prepared by the Protection Officer or service provider on receiving a complaint of domestic violence. It records the parties, the household and the incidents in a structured format, and the Magistrate must take it into account. It is an aid to the court — the DV Act does not make it the pleading, and the aggrieved woman's own application under Section 12 remains the foundational document.
What had the courts below done in this case?
The Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Shahdara, by order dated 8 April 2021, issued summons to some respondents but deleted two family members from the array because the DIR contained no specific allegations against them. The Sessions Court dismissed the aggrieved woman's appeal under Section 29 on 21 October 2021. Both orders rested on the DIR alone and ignored the detailed allegations in the complaint.
Does summoning a respondent mean liability under the DV Act?
No. The High Court emphasised that proceedings under Section 12 are not strictly criminal in nature. After summons issue and the respondents file their replies, the Magistrate retains full power to assess the material and decline relief against any respondent if no case is made out. Summoning only ensures that persons squarely accused in the complaint answer it.
What did the High Court ultimately order?
It set aside the Sessions Court judgment and the Magistrate's order to the extent it deleted the two respondents, and directed that once the petitioner takes the requisite procedural steps, the Magistrate shall issue summons to them. A copy was sent to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, for information and compliance.