Petition challenges FIR and criminal proceedings
The officer is seeking to have both the FIR and the resulting criminal proceedings quashed. She alleges that her husband, an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, used his influence to have the case registered.
Solan Sadar police station registered the FIR on May 18, 2025, under Sections 305, 331(3), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The provisions concern theft, trespass, criminal intimidation and intentional insult.
Section 305, covering theft in a dwelling house, is the most serious of the four provisions. According to the BNS text published by Devgan.in, it permits imprisonment of either description for up to seven years and a fine. The offense is classified as cognizable and non-bailable.
Section 351(2), concerning criminal intimidation, allows imprisonment of either description for up to two years, a fine, or both. Section 352, which addresses intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, provides the same punishment options and is classified as non-cognizable and bailable.
Allegations and related family court proceedings
In her petition, the officer says the couple married on February 16, 2023, and later developed marital differences. She accuses her husband and his family of domestic violence and dowry-related demands.
Her husband filed for divorce in the family court in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, on December 23, 2024, according to the petition. She says she visited their marital home in Solan on December 31 and alleges that, on the night of January 1, 2025, he assaulted her and threatened to kill her with his service firearm.
She filed a domestic violence complaint in a Jaipur court on February 10, 2025. Her mother-in-law lodged the FIR now being challenged on May 18 that year. On October 8, 2025, the Supreme Court transferred the divorce case from Agra to the family court in Jaipur.
State given two weeks to respond
Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, hearing the petition as a single judge, issued notices on October 16 to the respondents, including the officer's husband and his mother. Deputy Advocate General Prashant Sharma accepted notice on the state's behalf and received two weeks to submit a reply.
The court directed the state not to take coercive action against the officer in the FIR. The case is next listed for November 17.
