High Court Erred in Declaring Quashing Petition Non-Maintainable Against DV Act Proceedings: Supreme Court Reaffirms Maintainability Under Section 528 BNSS

“View Expressed by High Court Holding the Quashing to be Not Maintainable, Cannot Be Legally Sustained” – Supreme Court of India, in a significant reaffirmation of procedural rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, held that a petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act is maintainable under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the provision that corresponds to the erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan allowed the appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s refusal to entertain a quashing petition and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits, clarifying the legal position for future cases.

The dispute arose when V. Krishnamma and other family members approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, seeking quashing of domestic violence proceedings initiated against them by Garima Bais, under Section 12(1) of the DV Act. The petitioners invoked Section 528 BNSS, which is the newly introduced provision in the BNSS carrying forward the essence of Section 482 Cr.P.C., empowering High Courts to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

The High Court, however, dismissed the petition on 10 December 2024, holding that the remedy of quashing was not maintainable in such cases.

Aggrieved by this ruling, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s interpretation of procedural law.

Whether a Petition under Section 528 BNSS is Maintainable Against Proceedings Initiated Under Section 12(1) of the DV Act?

The key legal question before the Supreme Court was:

Can a petition seeking quashing of domestic violence proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act be entertained under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.)?

This issue had already been settled earlier in the judgment of Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 INSC 734, where the Apex Court had expressly upheld the maintainability of such petitions under inherent jurisdiction of High Courts.

The bench noted that both parties admitted that the issue had already been adjudicated by the Court in the Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi case, which had conclusively held that:

“A petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the D.V. Act is maintainable.”

Applying the same principle under Section 528 of the BNSS, which carries forward the inherent powers of the High Court, the Court held that the High Court’s refusal to hear the petition was legally untenable.

The Court categorically stated in Para 4 of the order:

“In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the view expressed by the High Court holding the quashing to be not maintainable, cannot be legally sustained.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court Set aside the impugned order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 10.12.2024.

This ruling is a crucial reaffirmation of the inherent jurisdiction of High Courts under the new BNSS framework. It establishes that even under the post-CrPC regime, the right to seek quashing of criminal proceedings, including those under quasi-criminal statutes like the DV Act, remains intact and judicially recognized.

By aligning the application of Section 528 BNSS with precedents under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has provided continuity and clarity to litigants and the judiciary alike.

It also serves as a guiding precedent for subordinate courts and High Courts that may be confronted with similar issues during the ongoing transition from the CrPC to the BNSS.

The Supreme Court has reiterated that procedural safeguards under criminal law cannot be lightly denied merely due to the statutory nature of the DV Act. By allowing the appeal in V. Krishnamma & Others v. Garima Bais, the Court has protected the right to seek judicial scrutiny of abuse or misuse of process, reinforcing its commitment to a balanced application of justice under the newly codified criminal framework.

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025