High Courts can quash proceedings under Sec 12(1) of DV Act for gross illegality, injustice: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday held that the 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 Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the Magistrate.

Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act deals with the procedure for seeking relief.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, however, emphasised that considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1).

"Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice," the court said.

In the 33-page judgment, Justice Oka on part of the bench, noted he, earlier as a judge of the Bombay High Court, was a party to a judgment of October 27, 2016 of the Bombay High Court in which the view taken was that remedy under Section 482 of the CrPC is not available for quashing the proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005. This view was found to be incorrect subsequently by a full bench of the same High Court.

"As judges, we are duty-bound to correct our mistakes in properly constituted proceedings. Even for judges, the learning process always continues," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment, which rejected a plea filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the petitions on the ground that the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, being of a civil nature, cannot be quashed.

The court held High Court's decision 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. It restored the matter for consideration afresh by the High Court.

There are decisions of the High Courts that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is not available to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) of the 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 said.

Referring to the 2005 Act, the bench said, notwithstanding the penal provisions in the form of Sections 31 and 33 of Chapter V, the proceedings before the Magistrate are predominantly of a civil nature.

The court pointed out that an application under Section 12 cannot be equated with a complaint within the meaning of Section 200 of the CrPC (Section 223 of the BNSS).

The normal rule is that a notice of hearing must be issued on the application. The scheme of Section 12 is completely different from Section 200 of the CrPC or Section 223 of the BNSS, it noted.

However, the bench said, "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."

Generally, the court said, 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," the bench said.