proceeding being Case No.425/2018.

5. The respondent started to live in her parents’ house. On one occasion, in order to patch up their dispute, the respondent came to her matrimonial house but her husband left the house and started to reside at a hotel after locking his bedroom in his house.

6. Narrating the aforesaid facts, among other prayers, the respondent filed the said application before the court below seeking an amount of Rs.2 crore as compensation and damage caused to her mentally and emotionally. The petitioner reportedly earns Rs.2.3 lakh per month by working as the Chief Executive Engineer at Oil India Limited, Duliajan.

7. The leaned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and issued notice to the present petitioner.

8. The learned counsel Mr. Sarmah has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Madras Court that was delivered in Arul Daniel & Ors. v. Suganya, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435. In this judgment, the Hon’be Madras High Court has held that the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable, though a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable on a limited ground on patent lack of jurisdiction.

9. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Mr. S. Dutta has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 37, 38 and 39 are quoted as under.

“31. There are two parts of Section 482. Both parts save the inherent powers of the High Court. The first part is applicable where the power is exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under ‘this Code’. When a notice is issued on an application under Section 12(1), the learned Magistrate does not pass any order under the CrPC. When orders granting any of the reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 are passed, the orders of the learned Magistrate are not under the CrPC. Therefore, the first part of Section

482 cannot apply to proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005.

32. 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.

35. 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.

37. 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