Supreme Court: High Courts Can Exercise Power U/S 482 CrPC For Quashing Domestic Violence Act Proceedings Pending Before Magistrate

The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had dismissed the Appellant’s prayer to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The High Court had held that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act were civil in nature and thus could not be quashed using Section 482 of the CrPC.

A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice.”

Senior Advocate Vinay Navare appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Anurag Tandon represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The two connected Appeals challenged the Order of the High Court, which had dismissed the Appellant’s Petition to quash proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act. The Appellant in one appeal is the Respondent's brother-in-law, while the Appellants in the other Appeal are the Respondent's husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law.

The Respondent had filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act alleging domestic violence. The Appellants then filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the application.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court held, “There are decisions of the High Courts taking a view that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is not available to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005. The decisions are primarily based on the premise that proceedings under Section 12(1) are predominantly of a civil nature. The said view is not correct for the reasons set out earlier.”

The Bench clarified, “When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect.”

“Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated,” the Court remarked.

The Bench further held, “The second part of Section 482 saves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, in a given case where a learned Magistrate is dealing with an application under Section 12(1), the High Court can exercise the power under the second part of Section 482 to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Hence, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, we quash the order dated 9th May, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Miscellaneous Criminal Case Nos. 52308 of 2022 and 3363 of 2023 and restore the said petitions to the file of the High Court. The restored petitions shall be heard afresh and disposed of by the High Court in the light of what we have held in this Judgment.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: S v. V (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 734)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Vinay Navare; AOR Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar; Advocates Kuldeep Rai and Sandeep Chawla

Respondents: AOR Anurag Tandon; Advocates Pankaj Thakkar and Manan Shah

Click here to read/download the Judgment