DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate

“Entertaining challenges under Article 227 at the threshold would flood the High Court and defeat the statutory scheme – proper course is to raise preliminary objections before Magistrate” – In a notable reaffirmation of judicial restraint under supervisory jurisdiction, the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the maintainability of a domestic violence complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Justice S. Sounthar held that preliminary objections, including those pertaining to the absence of a domestic relationship or shared household, must be raised before the Magistrate and not through supervisory jurisdiction at the High Court stage.

“Section 204 CrPC Not Attracted to DV Proceedings – Magistrate Can Decide Maintainability”

The core argument raised by the petitioners (husband and in-laws) was that the allegations in the complaint were vague and did not warrant initiation of proceedings, and that the Magistrate had issued process without application of mind.

The High Court, however, placed reliance on the authoritative Full Bench judgment in Arul Daniel and Others v. Suganya, [(2022) SCC OnLine Mad 5435], which had clearly held that Section 204 of the CrPC (relating to issuance of process) is not applicable to D.V. proceedings, and therefore, the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338, concerning bar on recall of process, would not apply.

“As there is no issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under the D.V. Act, the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal... will not apply... It would be open to an aggrieved respondent(s) to approach the Magistrate and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues,” the Court quoted from the Full Bench ruling.

“Shared Household, Domestic Relationship Can Be Raised as Preliminary Issues”

The High Court reiterated that key jurisdictional elements, such as the existence of a domestic relationship or shared household, can be treated as preliminary issues before the Magistrate.

“Issues like the existence of a shared household/domestic relationship etc., which form the jurisdictional basis for entertaining an application under Section 12, can be determined as a preliminary issue in appropriate cases.”

Justice Sounthar clarified that raising such issues before the Magistrate, instead of invoking Article 227, was in keeping with the legislative intent of the D.V. Act and the procedural scheme under which such proceedings are conducted.

“Quashing Petitions at Threshold Would Defeat Statutory Scheme” – High Court Declines to Intervene

Taking a firm view on the limited role of the High Court in exercising supervisory powers under Article 227, the Court observed:

“This Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off the complaint.”

The Court echoed the concern expressed by the Full Bench in Arul Daniel, cautioning against entertaining premature challenges under Article 227 which would otherwise flood the High Court with maintainability questions, and noted that:

“Such an approach would defeat the statutory scheme of the Domestic Violence Act.”

“Civil Nature of DV Proceedings Justifies Dispensing With Personal Appearance”

The Court also addressed the personal inconvenience often caused to respondents in D.V. proceedings, especially in matters where allegations are primarily civil in nature. Acknowledging this, it passed a direction in favour of the petitioners:

“The personal appearance of the petitioners during enquiry before the Magistrate is dispensed with unless absolutely necessary.”

This direction reaffirms the judicial approach of ensuring procedural fairness and proportionality in gender-sensitive legislation, balancing the rights of both complainants and respondents.

With this decision, the Madras High Court has firmly laid down that the High Court should not be approached under Article 227 for quashing D.V. Act complaints at the initiation stage. The ruling reinforces the Magistrate's role in adjudicating preliminary objections, and encourages parties to exhaust statutory remedies, including appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act, before invoking constitutional remedies.

The judgment is consistent with the Full Bench ruling in Arul Daniel v. Suganya and strengthens judicial discipline in limiting the scope of intervention at preliminary stages in sensitive family law disputes.

Date of Decision: 03.12.2025