The Supreme Court held that High Courts possess inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as these applications are filed before Criminal Courts (Magistrates). However, such power must be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross illegality or abuse of process, considering the civil nature of DV Act remedies and its objective as social welfare legislation. The Court clarified that proceedings under the DV Act, though heard by Criminal Courts, remain predominantly civil in character.
Facts Of The Case:
Vidhi Rawal (Respondent) married Prateek Tripathi on December 12, 2019, in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. After two years, on December 8, 2021, she complained to Dewas police against Prateek and his father, Vivekanand Tiwari, alleging dowry demands. On January 7, 2022, she filed FIR No. 3/2022 at Mahila Thana, Dewas, under IPC Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 34 against Prateek, Vivekanand, Mira Tiwari (mother-in-law), and Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi (brother-in-law/Appellant), accusing them of mental and physical harassment for non-payment of dowry. She alleged torture upon her return from Johannesburg, demanding ₹20 lakh cash and an SUV. On March 2, 2022, she filed application MJCR No. 215/2022 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) before the Dewas District & Sessions Judge against all four, seeking reliefs (including protection, residence, and monetary orders) and detailing abuse by Prateek abroad. The Appellants (Shaurabh in one petition; Prateek, Vivekanand & Mira in another) filed petitions under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking to quash the DV Act proceedings. The High Court dismissed both petitions via a common order, holding DV Act proceedings were civil in nature and thus not quashable under Section 482 CrPC. This dismissal led to the present Supreme Court appeals.
Procedural History:
The proceedings originated when Vidhi Rawal filed an application (MJCR No. 215/2022) under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the District and Sessions Judge, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, against the Appellants. The Appellants (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi in one petition; Prateek Tripathi, Vivekanand Tiwari, and Mira Tiwari in another) filed separate petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, seeking to quash the DV Act proceedings. By a common order dated May 9, 2024, the High Court dismissed these petitions (Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 52308 of 2022 and 3363 of 2023), holding that proceedings under the DV Act are civil in nature and thus inherently non-quashable under Section 482 CrPC. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the Appellants filed Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) before the Supreme Court of India (SLP(Crl) Nos. 9493 of 2024 and 13896 of 2024). The Supreme Court granted leave, consolidated the petitions, and registered them as Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688 and 2689 of 2025. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s impugned order, and remanded the Section 482 CrPC petitions back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with its legal findings
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods: Bank Guarantee Encashment ≠ Duty Payment
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that while proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are predominantly civil in nature (providing protective, residence, and monetary remedies), they are instituted before Criminal Courts (Judicial/Metropolitan Magistrates) under CrPC jurisdiction. Consequently, High Courts possess inherent power under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure justice. However, this power must be exercised with extreme caution and restraint, limited to cases of gross illegality or manifest injustice, given the DV Act’s social welfare objective to protect victims. The Court clarified that DV applications differ fundamentally from criminal complaints (no cognizance of offences under Section 200 CrPC), and statutory appeals to Sessions Courts under Section 29 DV Act provide adequate recourse. Interference under Section 482 should be rare to avoid undermining the Act’s purpose.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688 & 2689 of 2025), setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated May 9, 2024. It held that High Courts possess jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as these applications are filed before Criminal Courts (Magistrates). However, the Court emphasized this power must be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross illegality, abuse of process, or to secure justice, given the civil nature of DV Act remedies and its social welfare purpose. The impugned petitions (Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 52308/2022 & 3363/2023) were restored to the High Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with these legal principles. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the High Court to reconsider the petitions while strictly adhering to the cautionary standards outlined in the judgment.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal Citation: 2025 INSC 734 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2688 & 2689 of 2025 Date of Judgment: May 19, 2025. Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Download The Judgement Here