MIHIR RAJESH SHAH VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR, 2025 (CR. APPEAL NO. 2195 OF 2025)
November 10, 2025ABC VS Internal Complaints Committee & Ors, 2025 (W.P. (ST) No. 15574 of 2025)
November 10, 2025V. KRISHNAMMA & ORS. VS GARIMA BAIS, 2025 (SLP(Crl.) NO. 9534 OF 2025)
Name of the Court: Hon'ble Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India, on October 28, 2025, ruled that a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (equivalent to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) seeking the quashing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) is legally maintainable.
The Court referred to Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi VS. Vidhi Rawal, wherein it was opined that the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the D.V. Act is maintainable.
Case Background
The appellants—V. Krishnamma and others—were respondents in proceedings initiated by the respondent, Garima Bais, under Section 12(1) of the DV Act. They approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the domestic violence complaint on the ground that the proceedings were baseless and amounted to abuse of process.
On December 10, 2024, the High Court dismissed their petition, holding that such petitions challenging DV Act proceedings were not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the DV Act provided its own procedural remedies.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The principal legal issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) for quashing proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable?
Arguments
-
The appellants contended that the High Court’s view was contrary to established Supreme Court precedents that recognize the inherent powers of High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice—even in proceedings under the DV Act.
-
The respondent did not dispute the legal position but relied on the High Court’s order.
-
Both sides acknowledged that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 INSC 734), where it was categorically held that petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging DV Act proceedings are indeed maintainable.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan reaffirmed the principle laid down in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025). The Court held that:
-
The High Court’s finding declaring the petition as non-maintainable was erroneous.
-
High Courts retain their inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (or Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings under any statute—including the Domestic Violence Act—if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or amounts to abuse of judicial process.
-
Therefore, the High Court should have considered the petition on its merits instead of dismissing it on maintainability grounds.
Judgment and Directions
The Supreme Court:
-
Set aside the impugned order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated December 10, 2024.
-
Remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
-
Directed the parties to appear before the High Court on November 11, 2025, for further proceedings.
-
Disposed of the appeal and all pending applications accordingly.
Significance
This decision reinforces the judicial oversight powers of High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings arising from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when warranted. It upholds the principle that the existence of special statutes like the DV Act does not exclude the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of the legal process.
In essence, the judgment harmonizes the DV Act with the Cr.P.C., ensuring that while victims of domestic violence receive statutory protection, the accused retain recourse to constitutional and procedural safeguards against frivolous litigation.
