Supreme Court: Section 26 DV Act Allows Courts To Grant Relief U/s. 18-23: But It Doesn’t Confer Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/s. 12

The Court held that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), pending before the Court of the Magistrate.

A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that “in any legal proceedings pending before a Civil Court or Family Court affecting the aggrieved person, the reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 can be sought. Similarly, in a Criminal Court other than the Courts of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class and Metropolitan Magistrate, reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 can be sought. For example, in proceedings before a Court of Session, such reliefs can be sought provided the proceeding affects the aggrieved person. We must note here that Section 26 does not confer jurisdiction on Courts other than the Courts mentioned in Section 27 to entertain an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005. It only enables the Courts mentioned therein to grant the reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 in the pending legal proceedings.”

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

Brief Facts

The two connected Appeals challenged the Order of the Madhya Pradesh 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 allowed the Appeal challenging the Order of the High Court which had dismissed the Appellant’s prayer to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the 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.

“So, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, has jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 as can be seen from the provisions of Sections 12 and 27 read with clause (i) of Section 2 of the DV Act, 2005,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. 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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 734)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Vinay Navare; Advocates Kuldeep Rai, Nandini Rai, Aryan Dev Pandey, Mayur Narang, Rimjhim Pandey and Alok Mishra; AOR Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar

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

Click here to read/download the Judgment