VINEET VS VISHAL SOHAL, VINEET VS DINESH KAPOOR, 2025 (CIVIL REVISION NO. 4083 OF 2013
November 19, 2025SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 2025: FAMILY COURT MUST ASCERTAIN RESPONSIBILITY FOR MARITAL BREAKDOWN – DR. ANITA VS. INDRESH GOPAL KOHLI
November 20, 2025RIZWAN YOUSUF QAZI VS. SHAZIYA SHAH, 2025 (CM(M) 488/2025)
Name of the Court: Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar Bench, delivered an order on 11 November 2025 in CM(M) 488/2025 (with CM 7336/2025) titled Rizwan Yousuf Qazi vs. Shaziya Shah. The petitioner, Rizwan Yousuf Qazi, challenged the issuance of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) by the Additional Mobile Magistrate, Ganderbal, in proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Background of the Case
The respondent, Shaziya Shah, filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, seeking relief as an aggrieved person. During the proceedings, the petitioner allegedly failed to appear before the trial court despite service of summons. Instead of proceeding ex parte, the Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants to secure his appearance.
Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that the issuance of NBWs was illegal and contrary to the nature of proceedings under the DV Act. He also sought directions regarding referral of the matter to mediation and access to certified copies of certain orders and documents.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjay Dhar considered the matter and clarified the legal position regarding proceedings under the DV Act. The Court emphasized that proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature. They do not constitute a criminal complaint, nor do they attract procedures applicable to regular criminal trials unless an offence defined within the DV Act is made out.
The Court noted that:
-
Section 12 DV Act proceedings are not criminal complaints.
They are intended to provide civil protection and reliefs to aggrieved women, including residence orders, protection orders, monetary reliefs, custody orders, etc. -
A Magistrate cannot issue warrants merely because a respondent fails to appear.
The correct legal course is to proceed ex parte if the respondent refuses to appear despite service of notice. NBWs are appropriate only when the respondent commits a defined offence under the DV Act (e.g., breach of a protection order under Section 31). -
Therefore, the order of the trial Magistrate issuing non-bailable warrants was legally unsustainable.
Decision
The High Court quashed the non-bailable warrants, declaring them contrary to law. It reiterated the limited powers of a Magistrate in DV Act proceedings and restored the correct procedural approach.
Regarding other grievances—such as the petitioner’s claim that the matter had not been referred to mediation or that he had been denied certified copies—the Court held that these concerns must be addressed by the trial Magistrate. The High Court directed the Magistrate to consider such applications as per law.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards within the DV Act and ensures that respondents are not subjected to harsh criminal processes unless warranted by statutory provisions. It ensures that DV Act proceedings remain civil in nature, preventing misuse of coercive tools like non-bailable warrants.
