In a significant ruling addressing the interplay between criminal procedure and protective civil legislation, the Supreme Court of India has held that High Courts can exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan in a recent judgment.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from a common order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed petitions filed by the appellants seeking to quash domestic violence proceedings initiated by the respondent. The appellants included the respondent’s husband, brother-in-law, and parents-in-law.
The respondent had filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act before the District and Sessions Judge, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, alleging mental and physical harassment related to dowry demands. She claimed she was subjected to abuse upon her return from Johannesburg, South Africa, including demands for ₹20 lakh in cash and a luxury SUV. She sought relief under Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act.
The appellants sought quashing of the proceedings by invoking Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court dismissed their petitions, holding that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act were civil in nature and hence not amenable to quashing under the CrPC’s inherent jurisdiction.
Appellants’ Arguments
Senior counsel for the appellants contended that the DV Act empowers Magistrates, who are Criminal Courts under the CrPC, to grant reliefs such as those under Sections 18 to 23. Since the jurisdiction arises from a criminal court framework, applications under Section 12 fall within the domain of criminal law, and therefore, Section 482 CrPC applies.
Reliance was placed on High Court decisions including Devendra Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare v. Mangala, which upheld the maintainability of quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC in DV Act proceedings. It was argued that despite the civil nature of reliefs, the proceedings retain their criminal procedural framework.
Respondent’s Submissions
The respondent argued that the DV Act provides civil remedies for protection against domestic violence and does not constitute criminal prosecution. Relying on Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, the counsel emphasized that the proceedings are primarily civil in nature and thus not subject to Section 482 CrPC. It was submitted that notices under Section 12 are not summons under the CrPC but are governed by the DV Rules, 2006.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the legislative scheme of the DV Act, particularly Section 12 which allows aggrieved persons to approach Magistrates for reliefs without invoking criminal prosecution. The Bench noted that while these proceedings are governed by the CrPC (per Section 28), they are distinct from complaints under Section 200 CrPC.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, observed:
“An application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, cannot be equated with a complaint within the meaning of Section 200 of the CrPC… the scheme of Section 12 is completely different.”
It was clarified that although the DV Act is predominantly civil in nature, the Magistrates exercising jurisdiction under the Act are criminal courts as defined under Section 6 of the CrPC. The Court underscored that Section 482 CrPC refers to “any court,” which includes these Magistrates.
Crucially, the Court held:
“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.”
Scope and Caution in Exercise of Power
While affirming the High Court’s jurisdiction, the Supreme Court cautioned against its routine exercise:
“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.”
The Court emphasized the welfare objective of the DV Act, meant to protect women from domestic violence, and noted that excessive interference could defeat the legislative intent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order dated May 9, 2024, which had rejected the quashing petitions. The Court restored the original petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court for reconsideration on merits in light of its findings.
“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… The appeals are allowed accordingly.”
