Can Domestic Violence Cases Be Quashed at the Notice Stage? Allahabad High Court Refers Questions to Larger Bench Amid Conflicting Rulings

Allahabad High Court referred a crucial legal issue to a Larger Bench, seeking clarity on whether proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, can be quashed at the notice stage under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC). The Court took this step after observing that two Co-ordinate Benches had issued conflicting rulings, with one bench barring such quashing petitions and another permitting them while declaring the earlier judgment per incuriam—a move that Justice Om Prakash Shukla found legally untenable.

"The principle of stare decisis must be followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of equal strength. It is binding unless referred to a Larger Bench," remarked Justice Om Prakash Shukla, as he questioned the judicial propriety of one bench disregarding a previous ruling of equal authority.

The Court pointed to two conflicting judgments that necessitated a Larger Bench decision.

In Smt. Suman Mishra v. State of U.P., the Court held that an application under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) cannot be used to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act at the notice stage. The ruling relied on Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022) 15 SCC 50, where the Supreme Court emphasized that Domestic Violence Act proceedings are primarily civil in nature and should be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution instead.

However, in Devendra Agarwal v. State of U.P., a different bench of the Allahabad High Court took an entirely opposite stance, ruling that quashing petitions under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) were indeed maintainable. The bench went a step further and declared the earlier decision in Smt. Suman Mishra as per incuriam—suggesting that it was decided in ignorance of binding precedent.

Justice Shukla, disagreeing with this approach, remarked, "A Bench of equal strength cannot declare an earlier judgment per incuriam; instead, it must either follow it or refer the issue to a Larger Bench." Citing State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer (2003) 5 SCC 448, he reaffirmed that judicial discipline requires conflicting rulings to be reconciled by a higher authority, not arbitrarily dismissed.

"Judicial Discipline Requires a Bench to Follow or Refer, Not Ignore"

Justice Shukla emphasized that the correct approach for a Co-ordinate Bench that disagrees with a previous ruling is to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, not to sidestep binding precedent. He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 224, which held: "When a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding, subject to the right of the Bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a Larger Bench."

Referring to UP Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar (2012) 7 SCC 1, Justice Shukla further observed: "There are two decisions by two Division Benches from the same High Court. This leads to uncertainty and inconsistency. Judicial decorum and discipline demand that such matters be resolved only by a Larger Bench."

"Legal Uncertainty in Domestic Violence Cases: Seven Questions Sent to Larger Bench"

To bring clarity and consistency, the High Court formulated seven key legal questions for determination by a Larger Bench. The questions include:

Whether a Co-ordinate Bench has the authority to declare another Bench’s ruling per incuriam or must refer the matter to a Larger Bench for proper adjudication.

Whether Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) is applicable for quashing proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, or if the proper remedy lies under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

Which of the two conflicting judgments—Smt. Suman Mishra or Devendra Agarwal—correctly states the law.

Whether a notice issued by a Protection Officer under the Domestic Violence Act can be challenged under Section 528 BNSS or only under writ jurisdiction.

"Trial Court Proceedings Stayed Until Larger Bench Decision"

Recognizing the legal uncertainty caused by the conflicting rulings, the High Court directed trial courts to adjourn proceedings in affected cases until the Larger Bench delivers its ruling.

"Since the matter is being referred, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall adjourn proceedings until the final outcome of the reference," Justice Shukla ordered.

"Larger Bench Ruling Expected to Settle Key Issues in Domestic Violence Litigation"

The Larger Bench's decision will have significant ramifications for individuals facing Domestic Violence Act proceedings and for judicial consistency in interpreting Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC).** The ruling will determine whether quashing petitions can be entertained at the notice stage and will clarify the hierarchy of judicial precedent.

The legal community now awaits the Larger Bench’s verdict, which will shape the future of criminal and matrimonial law jurisprudence in India.

Date of Decision: 06/02/2025