2026 Supreme(Gau) 1096

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Parvez Alam And 3 Ors. S/o Tahir Hussain Ansari  – Petitioners
Versus
State of Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl.Pet. 1579 of 2024   
Decided On : 16-06-2026

High Courts may invoke inherent powers to quash domestic violence proceedings only in cases of gross illegality or injustice. Because a statutory appellate remedy exists, courts must exercise caution and avoid quashing cases where allegations require evidentiary support at trial.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12 and 29 - Quashing of proceedings - Principle laid down that while inherent powers of High Court can be invoked to challenge proceedings arising from domestic violence applications, such interference is restricted to cases of gross illegality or injustice - Existence of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 29 of the Act necessitates caution - Courts should not preemptively adjudicate allegations that require leading of evidence. (Paras 13, 16, 31, 39)

(B) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Applicability of inherent powers - Where allegations against respondents are substantial and clearly outline instances of mental and physical abuse, the court should not stifle proceedings at the nascent stage; however, where a respondent is peripheral, resides in a different location, and allegations are found to be lacking in specificity or foundation, the invocation of inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process is justified. (Paras 35, 36, 37)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of proceedings initiated against them under the domestic violence legislation, arguing that the complaint was a counterblast to an earlier report lodged by them. The aggrieved party alleged physical and emotional abuse, including assault during pregnancy and deprivation of basic dignity. The lower court had issued notice to the family members, prompting the petitioners to bypass the statutory appellate remedy and move the High Court directly.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the allegations against the primary respondents (husband and immediate in-laws) involved grave acts of cruelty that could not be determined without trial/evidence. Conversely, the allegations against a distant family member, who resided outside the shared household, lacked substance and appeared to be a result of over-implication.

Issues: Whether the inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised to quash domestic violence proceedings when a statutory appellate remedy is available; and whether the allegations against the respective respondents are sufficient to warrant trial or merit quashing.

Ratio Decidendi: While the court possesses inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings originating from domestic violence applications, it must exercise this power with circumspection. Interference is only warranted in instances of gross illegality or injustice. Where the complaint sufficiently maps out acts of domestic violence, the matter must be left for adjudication before the trial magistrate rather than being truncated by the High Court.

Result: Criminal petition partly allowed; proceedings quashed specifically against the peripheral family member while allowed to continue against the primary respondents.