Court underscores that allegations of domestic violence and limitation issues are mixed questions of fact and law, urging restraint in invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In a significant ruling delivered on October 17, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice H.P. Sandesh, dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("DV Act"). The petition was filed by Sabuj Paul, the husband, against his wife, Smt. Arpita Dasgupta, who had filed the domestic violence complaint.
The case revolves around a matrimonial dispute where the wife alleged domestic violence and sought reliefs including Protection Order under Section 18, Residence Order under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, and compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act. The marriage was solemnized in 2013, and the couple initially lived together in Toronto, Canada. The wife later returned to India in 2016 and filed the domestic violence petition in 2017, claiming she was not taken back by the husband.
The petitioner contended that the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of over a year, thus barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). He also argued that the wife's allegations lacked specific details of domestic violence and were filed to harass him. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in his favor, and he was willing to reunite.
However, the High Court rejected these contentions, holding that issues of limitation and the existence of domestic violence are mixed questions of fact and law that must be adjudicated during trial. The court emphasized that petitions under Section 12 of the DV Act are civil in nature, and quashing such proceedings under the inherent powers of the High Court (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) should be exercised with extreme caution, primarily in cases of gross illegality or injustice.
Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, including the Madras High Court's ruling in Arul Daniel v. Suganya and the Apex Court's judgment in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, the court reiterated the welfare objective of the DV Act to protect women from domestic abuse. It noted that the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act is not a criminal court in the traditional sense, and therefore, the scope for interference via Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited.
The judgment clarified that the procedural safeguards and limitation principles applicable to regular criminal complaints do not straightforwardly apply to petitions under the DV Act. Additionally, the court highlighted that the wife's specific allegations in the petition preclude a blanket quashing.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the domestic violence proceedings to continue for trial and determination on merits. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding women's rights under the DV Act while ensuring that the courts do not prematurely interfere with substantive fact-finding processes.
Bottom Line:
Domestic Violence Act - Petition under Section 12 seeking reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 - High Court should be slow in exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such proceedings - Where wife has made specific allegations of domestic violence, questions regarding limitation and existence of domestic violence are matters for trial - No case of gross illegality or injustice made out.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 2(d), 190, 200-204, 468, 473, 482
Sabuj Paul v. Smt. Arpita Dasgupta, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001769
