Inherent Powers of High Courts in Domestic Violence Cases Explained through Section 482 CrPC in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal

This is the introduction.

A fundamental procedural issue concerning the use of High Court powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in cases arising under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) was clarified by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark decision of “Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal” (2025 INSC 734). This decision was issued in the year 2025.

A decision regarding this matter was made in the year 2025. The most important topic that was examined was whether or not the High Court is entitled to employ the inherent powers that it possesses under the Criminal Procedure Code in order to dismiss proceedings that were initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.

This section of the act provides civil remedies to women who have been abused. In cases involving domestic abuse, this ruling brings about a more harmonious interaction between the criminal and civil remedies that are accessible. It also brings an end to a court argument that has been going on for a long time.

In a few words, a concise summary of the situation

Members of the Tripathi family, including the respondent Vidhi Rawal’s spouse, her in-laws, and her brother-in-law, were involved in the appeals submitted. She stated that she had been subjected to incidents of physical and emotional abuse in connection with dowry demands, which included the need for cash and a luxury automobile, within the first two years after Vidhi’s marriage to Prateek Tripathi in 2019.

This occurred within the first two years after Vidhi’s marriage to Prateek In 2019. In the year 2022, a First Information Report (FIR) was submitted in accordance with Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, a complaint of domestic abuse was submitted in accordance with Section 12 of the Domestic abuse Act.

As a result of the fact that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were of a civil nature and were therefore not subject to the inherent powers of the High Court under the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused attempted to have the proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and its new counterpart, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) thrown out.

This was done in an effort to have the proceedings dismissed. The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected their petition, stating that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act could not be delayed by recourse to Section 482. This decision was made in response to the petition that they submitted. The Supreme Court was asked to evaluate and take into consideration this ruling that was given to them.

Essential Provisions That Are Involved in the Process

As a result of the Domestic abuse Act of 2005, women who have been victims of domestic abuse are now eligible to receive civil remedies that are not only timely but also effective. It is possible for a woman who has been wronged or a person acting on her behalf to file an application to a Magistrate in accordance with Section 12 of the Act in order to obtain reliefs such as protection, residence, maintenance, custody, and compensation in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the Act.

The primary source of contention in relation to this matter was Section 28(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, which specifies that acts under Sections 12 and 18 to 23 shall be managed by the Criminal Procedure Code.

This provision was the focal point of the dispute. Nevertheless, by virtue of Section 28(2), the court is granted the ability to adopt its own procedures for the disposition of applications that have been presented in line with Section 12. Due to this, there was a confusion regarding the type of proceedings that were conducted in accordance with the Domestic Violence Act, notably regarding whether or not they were of a civil or criminal nature.

In accordance with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court possesses the inherent authority to issue orders that are necessary in order to (a) ensure that any order issued under the Code is carried out, (b) prohibit any court from abusing its procedure, or (c) guarantee that the interests of justice are protected.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

An analysis of the decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court

Although the procedures that fall under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act are primarily of a civil nature, the Supreme Court has decided that they are adjudicated in a criminal court, specifically the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, within the framework of the Criminal Procedure Code.

This decision was made despite the fact that the criminal nature of the procedures is primarily civil. This is the reason why the High Court continues to have the ability to hear petitions that are filed under Section 482 in order to dismiss actions of this nature.

The Court made it abundantly plain that the powers conferred by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not restricted to the prosecution of conventional criminal cases; rather, they embrace any matter that is presented before a criminal court, including instances that may afford civil reliefs. This was made explicit by the Court.

It is unmistakable that the criminal courts that are listed in Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code are the ones that are being referred to when the word “court” is used in Section 482. Among these courts are the Magistrates’ courts, which are the ones that are in charge of deciding matters that involve the Domestic Violence Act.

On the other hand, when it came to dictating the extent of this intervention, the Court proceeded with care. Because the Domestic Violence Act is a welfare act that is intended to protect women from violence, it was emphasized that the High Court should only utilize its quashing power in extreme circumstances, such as where there is clear evidence of flagrant injustice or abuse of process.

This was done because the quashing authority is only applicable in extraordinary circumstances.

The Domestic Violence Act, Section 12, as well as Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the United States

There was a considerable difference between the complaints that were submitted under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the petitions that were filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act from the perspective of the court.

The Magistrate is required to take into consideration the complainant and maybe witnesses before taking cognizance of a complaint that has been filed in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

According to Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, on the other hand, the Magistrate is the one who is responsible for issuing notices of hearing and has the authority to grant ex-parte or interim orders based on a prima facie view. Despite the fact that domestic violence cases are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code for formality, the concept that these proceedings are fundamentally different and require a specific approach to quashing is strengthened as a result of this procedural disparity.

An explanation of the significance of Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act

According to Section 26 of the Act, it is permissible to make a claim for relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act in other legal actions, such as those that take place in civil and family courts. However, this is only possible in certain circumstances.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court made it quite plain that this does not imply that civil courts are the only ones that are able to take into consideration applications that fall under Section 12. In accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the only individuals who are authorized to conduct hearings and make decisions regarding applications of this nature are Magistrates.

Due to the fact that this interpretation is correct, the process will continue to be sped up, and it will continue to be in conformity with the objectives of the Domestic Violence Act.

The doctrine of restraint is considered to be applicable during the process of dismissing proceedings involving domestic abuse.

In light of the verdict, one of the most significant things that can be taken away from it is the significance of judicial responsibility. The Supreme Court of the United States instructed the High Courts that quashing should not be readily entertained in the context of domestic abuse cases, which are delicate and designed to provide immediate civil protection.

These procedures are designed to offer protection over an immediate period of time. If there was a clear and obvious violation of the administrative procedure or if there was no legal basis for continuing the proceedings, then the only circumstances in which it would be appropriate to invoke Section 482 would be those scenarios.

Furthermore, the court made the observation that whereas criminal procedures under sections of the Indian Penal Code such as 498A have the potential to result in penalties such as arrest and imprisonment, proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are primarily concerned with ensuring that the victim is protected, that they have a place to live, and that they are treated with respect.

In light of this, it is recommended that these processes be allowed to continue until they are completed, unless there is an undeniable lack of justification for doing so.

The conclusion of everything

With the ruling in the case of Shaurbh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, a long-standing judicial dispute about whether or not High Courts have the ability to dismiss domestic violence proceedings that were brought under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act has been answered. The question was whether or not High Courts have the authority to dismiss charges of domestic violence. The Supreme Court of the United States came to the conclusion that such a power does exist under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code; however, it must be utilized with caution and only in circumstances where there is a clear instance of injustice.

The decision that was made will have a wide variety of consequences. In spite of the fact that it acknowledges the rights of accused individuals to defend themselves against charges of domestic violence that are either baseless or malicious, it also upholds the principal objective of the Domestic Violence Act, which is to give victims of domestic abuse with relief that is both immediate and substantial.

By reaching this compromise, the Supreme Court was able to improve both the spirit of protective legislation for women and the procedural fairness of the system. This was accomplished by strengthening both simultaneously.

In conclusion, the Court reiterates that the nature of the remedy is not the only factor that determines jurisdiction in accordance with Section 482. The location in which the procedure is begun and the likelihood of abuse of process are the elements that determine the use of inherent judicial powers. Rather, the venue is the most important factor.

The ruling would be beneficial to both the parties involved in the litigation and the courts that are handling cases of domestic abuse across India since it will bring clarity that is desperately needed.