A Single Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh while relying upon the Full-Bench Judgment of the High Court of Madras in ‘Arul Daniel and others vs Suganya’, (2022 SCC Online Mad 5435)has reiterated that a petition under Section 482 CrPC against an order passed by a Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) is not maintainable. However, the person aggrieved can approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 

The Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of the Trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch) passed in an Application by the Respondent under Section 23 of the DV Act, as well as the order of the Appellate Court (Principal Sessions Judge, Poonch) in an Appeal under Section 29 of the Act, whereby the order of the Trial Court was upheld. The Court, while dealing with the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents to the maintainability of the Petition under Section 482, CrPC, elaborated the intent and nature of the Act as well as the nature of reliefs provided therein. It held that the proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act of 2010 are primarily civil in nature, and it is only upon breach of an interim order, or a protection order that punishment up to one year or fine up to Rs. 20,000/- or both, are attracted.

The court further observed that even though as per Section 28 of the Act all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 are governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nevertheless, the same provision gives the power to the Magistrate to determine its own procedure for deciding an application under Section 12 or Section 23(2) of the Act. Moreover, it held that the DV Act is a “complete Code in itself that not only provides for grant of various reliefs by the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under the Act but also vests the powers upon the Civil. Criminal and Family court to grant the reliefs under the Act”.

The Court ruled that merely by extending the procedure under the CrPC to proceedings under the DV Act does not clothe the Magistrate acting under the DV Act as a criminal court, and therefore, a Petition for quashment of proceedings or challenging an order under the DV Act is not maintainable under Section 482 CrPC, however, if a person is aggrieved of an order passed by the Trial or the Appellate Court under the DV Act, he can approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.