Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 873

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Vidhi Rawal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 (arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9493 of 2024) with Criminal Appeal No. 2689 Of 2025 (arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13896 of 2024)
Decided On : 19-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Rai, Adv. Ms. Nandini Rai, Adv. Mr. Aryan Dev Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mayur Narang, Adv. Mr. Km. Rimjhim Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anurag Tandon, AOR Mr. Pankaj Thakkar, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Domestic violence – Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) for quashing proceedings emanating from application under Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005, pending before Court of Magistrate – However, considering object of DV Act, 2005, High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with application under Section 12(1).
(2) Domestic violence – Purpose of enacting the law was to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women from being victims of domestic violence – Application under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005, cannot be equated with a complaint within meaning of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. (Section 223 of BNSS) – Scheme of Section 12 is completely different from Section 200 of Cr.P.C. or Section 223 of BNSS.

Headnote:
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12 and 28 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Domestic violence – Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) for quashing proceedings emanating from application under Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005, pending before Court of Magistrate – However, considering object of DV Act, 2005, High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with application under Section 12(1) – Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in case of gross illegality or injustice – 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 – Order passed by High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case and petitions restored to file of High Court. (Paras 35, 39 and 40)
(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12 and 28 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Domestic violence – If complaint is entertained under Section 12(1), erring respondent cannot be punished as is understood in criminal law – He can be subjected to various orders as provided in Sections 18 to 23 – Respondent in application can be prosecuted only if he commits breach of protection order or interim protection order – Consequences of entertaining application under Section 12(1) are not as drastic as consequences of setting criminal law in motion – Orders that can be passed under DV Act, 2005, can also be very drastic, but in proceedings under Section 12(1), respondent cannot be sentenced to suffer imprisonment or a fine as in a criminal trial – Generally, High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1) – Unless High Courts show restraint in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC while dealing with prayer for quashing proceedings under DV Act, 2005, very object of enacting DV Act, 2005, will be defeated. (Paras 34 and 35)
(C) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12 and 28 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 200 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 223] – Domestic violence – Purpose of enacting the law was to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in society – Application under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005, cannot be equated with complaint within meaning of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. (Section 223 of BNSS) – Scheme of Section 12 is completely different from Section 200 of Cr.P.C. or Section 223 of BNSS – Court must make distinction between proceedings initiated on the basis of application under Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005, which are predominantly of a civil nature and proceedings before Criminal Court for prosecuting a person for any offence – Setting criminal law in motion has very serious consequences affecting liberty of a human being, as person against whom criminal law is set in motion can be arrested and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. (Paras 21, 27 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Main question involved in the appeals is whether High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (or Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Findings of Court:
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. Said view is not correct.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash proceedings emanating from an application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, but such interference should be cautious and reserved for gross illegality or injustice (!) (!) (!) (!) . - An application under Section 12 of the DV Act is not equivalent to a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC or Section 223 of the BNSS, as the former is predominantly civil in nature and follows a different procedure (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The DV Act is welfare legislation aimed at protecting women from domestic violence, and remedies under it focus on protection, residence, monetary relief, and custody orders rather than criminal punishment (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the scope of High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (or Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The main question involved in the appeals is whether the High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) or Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the DV Act, 2005’).

FACTUAL ASPECTS

3. The two connected appeals involve a challenge to the common order passed by the High Court rejecting the appellants’ prayer to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005. The appellant in the Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl) 9493 of 2024, Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi, is the respondent’s brother-in-law whereas the appellants in the Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl) 13896 of 2024, Prateek Tripathi, Vivekanand Tiwari and Mira Tiwari, are the respondent’s husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. Prateek Tripathi married the Respondent, Vidhi Rawal, on 12th December 2019 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Dewas. After two years of marriage, on 8th December 2021, the respondent made a complaint to the Station House Officer at the Police Station Women Consultancy Centre, Dewas, against Prateek Tripathi, and Vivekanand Tiwari alleging that dowry was demanded by them. On 7th January 2022, the respondent lodged FIR No.3 of 2022 at P.S Mahila Thana, Dewas under Section 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the appellants alleging mental and physical harassment on account of non-payment of dowry. The respondent claimed that on her return from work in Johannesburg, South Africa, the appellants tortured her, demanding a sum of Rs. 20 Lakh cash and a top model SUV car.

4. Aggrieved by the threats, the respondent on 2nd March 2022 filed an application against the appellants bearing MJCR No. 215/2022, before the District and Sessions Judge, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005. She claimed that Prateek Tripathi would beat her and throw her out of the house while they were abroad. The respondent prayed for reliefs provided under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the DV Act, 2005. The appellants filed two separate petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the quashing of the petitions on the ground that the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, being of a civil nature, cannot be quashed.

SUBMISSIONS

Appellants

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Magistrate has been conferred jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the DV Act, 2005. The term Magistrate is defined under Section 2(i) of the DV Act, 2005 to mean a Judicial Magistrate of first class or, as the case may be, a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the CrPC. Therefore, the Court of a Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate is a Criminal Court constituted under the provisions of the CrPC.

6. The learned senior counsel further contended that, although remedies under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 can be availed of in a Civil Court or Family Court as per Section 26, Section 26 cannot be read to understand the scheme of the DV Act, 2005.

7. The learned senior counsel invited our attention to various provisions under the CrPC where the nature of relief which can be granted by the Courts is, in essence, a relief which can be granted by a Civil Court. Similarly, certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), were pointed out by him, where the relief granted by a Civil Court can also be granted in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the answer to the question which arises for consideration is not dependent upon the nature of the proceedings or the nature of the relief that ca