In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether High Courts can invoke their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005). The case, titled Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v/s Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688, 2689 of 2025, was decided on May 19, 2025, by the Honourable Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and the Honourable Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Background of the Case:
The appeals arose from a common order by the High Court which rejected the appellants' plea to quash proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005. Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi, the respondent's brother-in-law, and Prateek Tripathi, Vivekanand Tiwari, and Mira Tiwari (the respondent's husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, respectively) were the appellants. The respondent, Vidhi Rawal, married Prateek Tripathi on December 12, 2019. She later filed a complaint alleging dowry demand and lodged an FIR under various sections of the IPC, claiming mental and physical harassment. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, seeking reliefs. The High Court had dismissed the quashing petitions, holding that DV Act proceedings were civil in nature and thus not amenable to Section 482 CrPC.
Appellants' Submissions:
The appellants argued that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, are maintainable before a Criminal Court (Magistrate) constituted under the CrPC, and therefore, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC should apply. They cited High Court decisions that supported the maintainability of Section 482 CrPC applications against DV Act orders to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice.
Respondent's Contentions:
The respondent countered that DV Act proceedings are civil in nature and thus cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The respondent emphasized that the DV Act, 2005, was intended by the legislature to be civil in nature, a view supported by previous Supreme Court decisions. It was further argued that an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, is not a "complaint" under Section 2(d) of the CrPC, and the procedures for taking cognizance under the CrPC do not apply to DV Act proceedings.
Court's Considerations and Ruling:
The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the DV Act, 2005, noting its object to provide more effective protection to women victims of domestic violence. The Court highlighted the wide definitions of "domestic violence" and "domestic relationship" , and the various reliefs available under Sections 17 to 22.
The Court clarified that while the DV Act, 2005, has penal provisions, the proceedings before the Magistrate under the Act are "predominantly of a civil nature". However, the Court distinguished an application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, from a "complaint" under Section 200 of the CrPC, noting the procedural differences.
Crucially, the Supreme Court held that the High Courts can indeed exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (and Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - BNSS) to quash proceedings emanating from an application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005. The Court reasoned that the second part of Section 482 CrPC, which saves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice, is applicable to DV Act proceedings.
Despite this, the Court emphasized that High Courts should exercise this power with "caution and circumspection". Interference under Section 482 is warranted only in cases of "gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law". The Court underscored that a "hands-off approach" should generally be adopted to avoid defeating the very object of the welfare legislation that is the DV Act, 2005. Another reason for caution is the availability of an appeal under Section 29 to the Court of Session against an order passed by a Magistrate under the DV Act, unlike most orders taking cognizance of an offense or issuing process.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order and restored the petitions to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of this judgment.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
