Specific domestic violence allegations and limitation disputes do not warrant quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

The petitioner-husband sought to quash proceedings in C.Misc. No. 148/2017, initiated by his wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).

The wife alleged domestic violence and sought protection, residence, monetary and compensation orders under Sections 18–22.

The parties married in 2013; the wife initially lived with the petitioner in Toronto, returned to India in 2016 and later filed the DV Act application.

The petitioner argued, among other things, that the application was time-barred, lacked specific allegations and was filed to harass him.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

Section 12 of the DV Act provides the procedure for seeking relief under the Act, while Sections 18–23 provide for protection, residence, monetary, compensation and other orders.

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent criminal jurisdiction; the Court relied on Arul Daniel v. Suganya and Oliver Menezes v. Serita Therese Mathias, which adopted the view that an application under Section 12 is not a complaint under the CrPC and that a Section 482 petition to quash such an application does not lie, with Article 227 review available on the limited ground of patent lack of jurisdiction.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s discussion of Section 482 in Saurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, observing that intervention in DV Act proceedings is warranted in cases of gross illegality or injustice, rather than through casual exercise of that power.

The Court held that the petitioner’s limitation argument could not be resolved in the Section 482 petition because limitation presented a mixed question of fact and law.

It also rejected the claim that the application contained no specific allegations, noting the wife’s pleaded allegations and distinguishing cases involving only omnibus accusations.

Whether domestic violence had occurred was a matter for trial.

The Court further considered the authorities addressing the procedural character of Section 12 proceedings and the limits on Section 482 intervention.

Although it recognised that intervention could be appropriate where illegality or injustice was shown, it found no such basis on the record.

It dismissed the criminal petition.