Introduction
Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 734
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a High Court use its inherent powers to stop legal proceedings filed under the Domestic Violence Act? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal. The core issue was whether the High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) or Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005). Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment.
Case Background
Vidhi Rawal married Prateek Tripathi on December 12, 2019, in Dewas, following Hindu customs. After two years, on December 8, 2021, Vidhi complained to the Station House Officer at the Police Station Women Consultancy Centre, Dewas, alleging dowry demands by Prateek Tripathi and Vivekanand Tiwari. On January 7, 2022, she filed FIR No. 3/2022 at P.S Mahila Thana, Dewas, under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), claiming mental and physical harassment for not meeting dowry demands. Vidhi stated that upon returning from work in Johannesburg, South Africa, the appellants tortured her, demanding Rs. 20 Lakh in cash and a top-model SUV car.
On March 2, 2022, Vidhi filed an application against the appellants under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, before the District and Sessions Judge, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, bearing MJCR No. 215/2022. She alleged that Prateek Tripathi physically assaulted her and evicted her from their home while they were abroad. Vidhi sought relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the DV Act, 2005. The appellants then filed two separate petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the Section 12 application. The High Court dismissed these petitions, stating that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, are civil in nature and cannot be quashed.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 12, 2019 | Vidhi Rawal married Prateek Tripathi in Dewas. |
| December 8, 2021 | Vidhi complained to the Station House Officer, alleging dowry demands. |
| January 7, 2022 | Vidhi filed FIR No. 3/2022 under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC. |
| March 2, 2022 | Vidhi filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005. |
| May 9, 2024 | The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the petitions to quash the Section 12 application. |
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments
- Jurisdiction of Magistrate: The appellants’ counsel argued that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the DV Act, 2005. The term “Magistrate” under Section 2(i) of the DV Act, 2005, refers to a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the CrPC. Therefore, the court is a Criminal Court constituted under the CrPC.
- Interpretation of Section 26: The counsel contended that while remedies under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 can be availed in a Civil Court or Family Court as per Section 26, this section should not dictate the overall scheme of the DV Act, 2005.
- Nature of Relief: The counsel argued that the nature of the proceedings or the relief granted does not determine the maintainability of an application under Section 482 CrPC. They pointed out provisions in the CrPC where courts grant reliefs typically granted by Civil Courts, and vice versa.
- Reliance on High Court Decisions: The counsel cited Devendra Agarwal and 3 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another and Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare v. Mangala, where the High Courts held that an application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable against orders passed under the DV Act, 2005, to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. It was noted that Devendra Agarwal has been referred to a larger bench in Ram Lotan Vishwakarma and Ors v. State of U.P and Anr.
- Maintainability Before Criminal Court: The counsel concluded that because an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, is maintainable before a Criminal Court under the CrPC, it falls under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Proceedings are Civil in Nature: The respondent’s counsel argued that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC because they are civil in nature. The counsel referred to the objects and reasons of the DV Act, 2005, to support this claim.
- Reliance on Supreme Court Decision: The counsel cited Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Another, where the Supreme Court held that proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in nature.
- Application is Not a Complaint: The counsel argued that an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, is not a “complaint” under Section 2(d) of the CrPC. They further argued that Sections 200 to 204 of the CrPC do not apply to proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, and a Magistrate cannot treat an application under the DV Act, 2005, as a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC.
- Notice vs. Summons: The counsel stated that the notice issued to the respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, is not a summons under Section 61 of the CrPC but a notice in Form VII of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006.
Summary of Submissions
| Issue | Appellants’ Submission | Respondent’s Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Proceedings | Maintainable under Criminal Court; Section 482 CrPC applies. | Civil in nature; Section 482 CrPC does not apply. |
| Magistrate’s Jurisdiction | Magistrate acts as a Criminal Court under CrPC. | Proceedings are civil, not criminal. |
| Application vs. Complaint | Not directly addressed. | Application under Section 12 DV Act is not a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC. |
| Legal Basis | Relies on Section 482 CrPC and High Court decisions. | Relies on the nature of DV Act proceedings and Supreme Court decisions. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
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 (CrPC) or Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005).
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Maintainability of Section 482 CrPC petition to quash DV Act proceedings | Maintainable | High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 of the BNSS) but should exercise caution and circumspection. Interference is warranted only in cases of gross illegality or injustice. |
Authorities
Cases and Books Relied Upon
- Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Another [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): Relied upon to emphasize that proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, are predominantly of a civil nature.
- Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi [CITATION] (Supreme Court of India): Cited to support the view that the DV Act is a civil code applicable to every woman in India, irrespective of religious affiliation or social background.
- Devendra Agarwal and 3 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [CITATION] (Allahabad High Court): Cited for the view that an application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable against orders passed under the DV Act, 2005. Note: This case has been referred to a larger bench.
- Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare v. Mangala [CITATION] (Bombay High Court): Cited for the view that an application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable against orders passed under the DV Act, 2005.
Legal Provisions Considered
- Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005: Deals with the application to Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.
- Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act, 2005: Specifies the types of reliefs that can be granted to an aggrieved person.
- Section 26 of the DV Act, 2005: Deals with relief in other suits and legal proceedings.
- Section 482 of the CrPC: Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
- Section 2(i) of the DV Act, 2005: Definition of “Magistrate” under the DV Act, 2005.
- Section 2(d) of the CrPC: Definition of “Complaint” under the CrPC.
- Sections 200 to 204 of the CrPC: Procedure for taking cognizance of an offence.
Treatment of Authorities by the Court
| Authority | Court | How Treated |
|---|---|---|
| Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Another | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon |
| Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon |
| Devendra Agarwal and 3 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another | Allahabad High Court | Cited (but referred to a larger bench) |
| Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare v. Mangala | Bombay High Court | Cited |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| High Court can’t quash DV Act proceedings under Section 482 CrPC because they are civil in nature. | Respondent | Rejected. The Court held that the High Court can exercise power under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 of the BNSS) but should exercise caution. |
| Section 482 CrPC is applicable as Magistrate acts as a Criminal Court under CrPC. | Appellant | Accepted. The Court agreed that proceedings before a Magistrate under the DV Act are before a Criminal Court. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Another [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight that DV Act proceedings are predominantly civil in nature, which influences the extent of interference permissible under Section 482 CrPC.
- Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to reinforce that the DV Act is a civil code applicable to all women in India, emphasizing its welfare nature.
- Devendra Agarwal and 3 Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [CITATION]: While the Court acknowledged this Allahabad High Court decision, it noted that the decision has been referred to a larger bench, indicating some uncertainty about its precedential value.
- Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare v. Mangala [CITATION]: The Court cited this Bombay High Court decision as supporting the view that Section 482 CrPC can be used to quash DV Act proceedings, but also clarified its stance in light of a later full Bench decision.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?:
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the protection of women from domestic violence with the prevention of abuse of legal processes. The Court emphasized that while DV Act proceedings are predominantly civil in nature, the High Court retains the power under Section 482 CrPC to intervene in cases of gross illegality or injustice. This reflects a dual concern: ensuring the DV Act’s objectives are met and safeguarding against its misuse.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Welfare nature of the DV Act, 2005 | 40% |
| Need to prevent abuse of process | 30% |
| Predominantly civil nature of DV Act proceedings | 20% |
| Availability of appeal under Section 482 CrPC | 10% |
“Fact:Law”: Create ratio table for showing the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide.
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (percentage of legal considerations) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- High Courts’ Power: High Courts retain the power under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash proceedings under the DV Act, 2005.
- Exercise of Caution: This power should be exercised cautiously, intervening only in cases of gross illegality or injustice.
- Welfare Legislation: The DV Act is a welfare legislation aimed at protecting women from domestic violence, and its objectives should not be defeated by unwarranted interference.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts can exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, but must do so cautiously, intervening only in cases of gross illegality or injustice. This clarifies the previously ambiguous position on whether Section 482 CrPC could be invoked in DV Act cases, settling the law on this point.
Author’s Comments
This judgment strikes a necessary balance between safeguarding the rights of women under the Domestic Violence Act and preventing the potential misuse of the legal process. By affirming the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC, the Supreme Court provides a crucial check against frivolous or malicious complaints, ensuring that the DV Act is not weaponized. However, the emphasis on exercising this power with caution is equally important, as it prevents the High Courts from undermining the Act’s primary objective of protecting women from domestic abuse. The clarification provided by this judgment will undoubtedly guide lower courts in handling such cases, promoting a more equitable and just application of the law.