mehnat Quashing under Criminal Procedure: Usual Meaning
Top of PageQuashing in the context of use of provisions of criminal procedure has come (in India) to usually mean the termination by a High Court of either proceedings or of the source (being (usually) an FIR or a DV complaint) of proceedings or of both proceedings and their source –in any given criminal matter or domestic violence case.
It is applied for by accused persons, and is usually applied for at a very early stage in the hearing process –before commencement of submissions by the prosecution. This does not however mean that it cannot be applied for at any more advanced stage in the criminal procedure.
A petition for quashing becomes an exit route from DV litigation if it succeeds, and it is the first feasible exit route. Note that it is not being claimed here that quashing is the first possible exit route. A lot of things which can come to pass in life –like the death of a complainant or that of an accused person– are outside the set of things which can be planned and executed in legal practice. Hence the use of the word "feasible" –and not "possible".
Further note that feasibility here has been determined keeping in mind the whole spectrum of things that can be done within the vast ambit of Indian criminal law, and is not necessarily applicable to any narrower scope. If something is possible in criminal law, it does not imply that it will be automatically feasible in the peculiar facts of your DV case.
A risk and reward assessment of filing a quashing petition is given later on in this article.
Where in criminal law is quashing mentioned?
Top of PageQuashing of cases is not mentioned in any legal provision. It is covered by Section 528 of the BNSS (Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita), which describes the power –being an immanent power– of a high court to pass any order which it wants to pass in any criminal matter. The BNSS (in substance) is nothing more than such a replacement for the CrPC whose birth was brought about by a desire –being the then government of India's desire– to replace the CrPC with absolutely anything having a hindi label; and this particular provision of the BNSS is nothing more than a ditto copy of Section 482 of the CrPC. Both these sections are reproduced hereunder.
BNSS Section 528 – Saving of inherent powers of High CourtTop of Page
(source: indiacode.nic.in)
Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
CrPC Section 482 – Saving of inherent powers of High CourtTop of Page
(source: devgan.in)
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
A common query: Are DV cases classified as criminal or civil?
Top of PageDV cases are civil cases. This is what the Supreme Court has decided in Kunapareddy ＠ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Another [1][2] (2016)—
Kunapareddy ＠ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Another
Top of PageSupreme Court
Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1537 of 2016)
Equivalent Citations: (2016) 11 SCC 774; AIR 2016 SC 2519;
Kunapareddy ＠ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Another
Date of Judgment: 18/04/2016
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Sikri, A.K. (J)
Agrawal, R.K. (J)
Held (in the 12th paragraph of the judgment):
"In respect of the petition seeking reliefs filed under Sections 18 (sic) and 20 (sic) of the DV Act, the proceedings are to be governed by the Code, as provided under Section 28 of the DV Act. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that these proceedings are predominantly of civil nature." (emphasis supplied)
Note that the above appears to (unfortunately) have been written in unclear language if it is cited without its surrounding text –as has been done hereinabove. It may be more effectively written as "In respect of the petition filed under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking reliefs under Sections 18 and 20 of the said Act, the proceedings are to be governed by the Criminal Procedure Code, as provided under Section 28 of the DV Act. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that these proceedings are predominantly of civil nature."
What makes DV cases in India quashable in high courts?
Top of PageNow it has been conveyed above that quashing is covered by such codes as govern criminal procedure (viz. CrPC and BNSS) and not civil procedure. And it has been conveyed above that DV cases are classified as civil cases. These facts taken together can make any logical person think that domestic violence cases cannot be quashed.
But this is not the case. DV cases can in fact be quashed by high courts. This is what the Supreme Court has decided in a judgement titled Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal [3][4] (2024-2025) (infra). The said judgement has been reinforced by another supreme court judgement, in a case titled V. Krishnamma vs Garima Bais [5][6] (2025) (infra).
The ratio decidendi of Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi is being presented hereunder—
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal
Top of PageSupreme Court
Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9493 of 2024)
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 734;
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal
Date of Judgment: 19/05/2025
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Oka, Abhay S. (J)
Bhuyan, Ujjal (J)
Held (in paragraph no. 23.1 of the judgment):
So, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, has jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 as can be seen from the provisions of Sections 12 and 27 read with clause (i) of Section 2 of the DV Act, 2005. (emphasis supplied)
Further held (in the 26th paragraph of the judgment):
Under the CrPC, Chapter II deals with the constitution of Criminal Courts and Offices. The Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class and Executive Magistrates are Criminal Courts as provided in Section 6 of the CrPC. Therefore, the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates of First Class, which are empowered to entertain applications under Section 12 and to grant reliefs under the DV Act, 2005, are Criminal Courts. (emphasis supplied)
Further held (also in the 26th paragraph of the judgment):
Similarly, under the BNSS, Section 6 thereof provides that Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class and Executive Magistrates are Criminal Courts. (emphasis supplied)
Further held (in paragraph no. 30.1 of the judgment):
The word ‘Court’ referred to in Section 482 is obviously a Criminal Court within the meaning of Section 6 of CrPC which includes a Court of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate. (emphasis supplied)
Further held (in the 31st paragraph of the judgment):
There are two parts of Section 482. Both parts save the inherent powers of the High Court. (emphasis supplied)
Further held (in the 32nd paragraph of the judgment):
The second part of Section 482 saves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, in a given case where a learned Magistrate is dealing with an application under Section 12(1), the High Court can exercise the power under the second part of Section 482 to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. (emphasis supplied)
Further held (also in the 32nd paragraph of the judgment):
Hence, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005. (emphasis supplied)
To satisfy academic interest, the gist of V. Krishnamma vs Garima Bais is also being provided here along with its operative part.
V. Krishnamma vs Garima Bais
Top of PageSupreme Court
Criminal Appeal No. 4640 of 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9534 of 2025)
V. Krishnamma vs Garima Bais
Date of Judgment: 28/10/2025
Decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India
Bindal, Rajesh (J)
Manmohan (J)
Held (in the 4th paragraph of the judgment):
In view of the aforesaid judgment (i.e. Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi –MU) of this Court, the view expressed by the High Court holding the quashing to be not maintainable, cannot be legally sustained. (emphasis supplied)
Further held (in the 5th paragraph of the judgment):
The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration on merits.
A risk and reward assessment of filing a quashing petition
Top of PageApplying for quashing of a case carries certain risks. These risks apply in all kinds of cases and not just in DV cases.
One risk is that the applicant will be unable to get a stay on proceedings in their criminal trial and will have to simultaneously pursue both cases. Another risk is that of wasted effort. Quashing is not a common relief and chances of failure exist.
The worst case scenario is that of a petitioner who first fails to get a stay on DV proceedings and then fails to get a favourable judgement.
What are the possible rewards? Well, success in a quashing petition is the best possible result of a DV case (not a quashing case, please note) from the point of view of accused persons. Benefits of such success are multifold.
The accused persons –if they win– are spared conviction, fines, prison terms, and various other possible negative consequences of losing a case. They may even get away from having to make interim maintenance payments without having to contest an interim maintenance application. Plus they largely escape the nuisances of preparing their defence and appearing on dates. In fact if they manage to obtain a stay on proceedings in their DV matter at the beginning of hearing of their quashing petition and later win a favourable judgement –a holy grail combination outcome in quashing cases– then they can altogether avoid the rigmarole of a DV trial.
References:
Top of Page1) Kunapareddy ＠ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Another, Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2016, (2016) 11 SCC 774, AIR 2016 SC 2519 (Supreme Court of India, 18 April 2016), Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 16th November 2025
2) Kunapareddy ＠ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2016, (2016) 11 SCC 774, AIR 2016 SC 2519 (Supreme Court of India, 18 April 2016), sci.gov.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 16th November 2025
3) Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No. 2688 OF 2025, 2025 INSC 734, (Supreme Court of India, 19 May 2025), Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 16th November 2025
4) Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal, Criminal Appeal No. 2688 OF 2025, 2025 INSC 734, (Supreme Court of India, 19 May 2025), sci.gov.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 16th November 2025
5)V. Krishnamma vs Garima Bais, Criminal Appeal No. 004640 / 2025 (Supreme Court of India, 28 October 2025), sci.gov.in; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 13th November 2025
6)V. Krishnamma vs Garima Bais, Criminal Appeal No. 004640 / 2025 (Supreme Court of India, 28 October 2025), Indiankanoon.org; Delhi; Undated; Retrieved on 13th November 2025