Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that High Courts can quash complaints filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2003).

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that High Courts can quash complaints filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2003).

“The view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate,” the Court observed.

“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. The said view is not correct,” the Court added.

The Court said that 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. 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.

At the same time, the bench cautioned that considering the object of the DV Act, the High Court should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1).

“Normally interference under section 482 is warranted only in case of gross illegality or injustice,” the bench observed. A bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pronounced the verdict.

Justice Oka noted that he was party to a judgment of the Bombay High Court delivered in 2016 which took the view that remedy under Section 482 CrPC is not available for quashing the proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act. However, this view was found to be incorrect by the Full Bench of the same High Court later.

“We are duty-bound to correct our mistakes in properly considered proceedings. Even for judges, the learning process always continues,” Justice Oka said.

The Court also acknowledged in its judgment that the proceedings before the Magistrate under the DV Act, 2005, are “predominantly of a civil nature.”

The Court also urged that the High Courts generally should adopt a “hands-off approach” under Section 482/528 while dealing with DV Act complaints.

“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.”