Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that men facing false domestic violence (DV) cases can approach the High Court to get them quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Earlier, many High Courts wrongly believed that DV Act cases are civil in nature and can’t be quashed. The Supreme Court has now made it clear—DV cases, even if civil in nature, are handled by criminal courts, and High Courts have full power to quash them. This is a massive win for husbands and their families who are often dragged into false DV cases.
Facts of the Case
- Vidhi Rawal filed a DV case and FIR against her husband Prateek Tripathi, his parents, and his brother.
- The allegations included mental and physical harassment and a demand for ₹20 lakh and an SUV.
- After these accusations, Vidhi also filed a Domestic Violence case under Section 12 of the DV Act.
- The husband and his family approached the High Court to quash the DV case using Section 482 of CrPC, but the High Court dismissed their petition.
- They appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case
- Section 12, DV Act: Lets women file applications for protection, maintenance, residence, etc.
- Section 482, CrPC: Allows High Courts to stop misuse of court process and ensure justice.
- Sections 18–23, DV Act: Types of relief women can claim under DV Act.
- Section 28, DV Act: Says DV cases are handled using CrPC rules.
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
Husband and Family (Petitioners):
- DV cases are filed in criminal courts, so High Courts can use Section 482 CrPC to quash them.
- Just because reliefs are civil in nature doesn’t take away the High Court’s powers.
- There are already judgments where High Courts quashed DV cases using Section 482.
Wife (Respondent):
- DV Act is more civil in nature and doesn’t come under CrPC’s Section 482.
- Argued that the Magistrate’s notice is not a criminal summons and hence not quashable.
- Claimed the High Court was right in refusing to interfere.
Court’s Observation:
- The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court.
- It said even though DV reliefs are civil, the proceedings happen before criminal courts, so Section 482 CrPC fully applies.
- Applications under Section 12 are not the same as criminal complaints under Section 200 CrPC—but the court still has the power to quash them if they are clearly false, malicious, or misused.
- High Courts should be careful and only quash DV cases in extreme cases of misuse or injustice, but they can and should do it when needed.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and said High Courts can quash DV cases under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 of the new BNSS.
- The matter has been sent back to the High Court to be reconsidered.
- This ruling ensures that men and their families are not helpless when falsely accused under the DV Act.
Comments from the author of this website
As a man who has seen how easily the DV Act is misused, this judgment comes as a huge relief. Earlier, once a DV case was filed, there was almost no way to get out of it—even if the allegations were completely false. Courts kept saying it’s a “civil” matter and refused to help.
But the Supreme Court has finally said what we’ve all been saying for years—false DV cases are a tool of harassment, and men have the right to ask for them to be quashed.
I’ve seen so many men suffer—dragged into courts for years, humiliated, their families targeted, careers damaged—all because someone filed a DV case out of anger or to gain an advantage in a divorce or custody battle.
Now, at least, we have a clear path: we can approach the High Court and say, “This is abuse of the law.” And if the court sees the truth, it can shut it down.
This judgment restores some balance in a system that has become one-sided. It doesn’t mean every DV case will be thrown out—but it means false ones can be. That matters.
Final Thoughts:
This judgment brings much-needed clarity to a long-standing legal confusion. By confirming that High Courts can quash proceedings under the DV Act using their inherent powers, the Supreme Court has ensured that genuine cases are heard, while frivolous or malicious complaints can be screened early.
It strikes a balance between protecting rights and preventing misuse of legal provisions. Going forward, this clarity should help courts deal with domestic violence cases more fairly and efficiently, without being bound by outdated interpretations.
Read Complete Judgement Here