Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act Not Akin To Criminal Prosecution, Magistrate Can Drop Or Revoke Process: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are not to be equated with the filing of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution.

The High Court explained that once the trial Magistrate obtains a response from the husband or his relatives, he is empowered to revoke the issuance of summons or drop proceedings if he finds that parties have been unnecessarily arrayed.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act and certain interim monetary reliefs granted by the trial Magistrate in favour of the aggrieved persons. The petitioners contended that the allegations were vague and that relatives of the husband had been wrongly implicated without a basis.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar, while adjudicating the matter, observed that “the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution and the trial Magistrate, after obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings”.

The matter arose after the respondents, being the wife and minor daughter of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, alleging domestic violence, continuous harassment and cruelty.

Upon considering the application, the Magistrate issued notice and later directed the petitioner to pay monthly monetary compensation and rental amounts to the respondents.

Challenging the proceedings as well as the interim directions, the petitioners approached the High Court. They argued that the allegations lacked specificity, that the petition had been entertained mechanically, and that the relatives of the petitioner had been unnecessarily arrayed with the intent to coerce a settlement.

The petitioners asserted that the Magistrate could not have issued process in the absence of a proper inquiry or satisfaction under the DV Act, and therefore, the entire proceedings were void.

The J&K and Ladakh High Court noted that the nature and scope of proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act fundamentally differ from criminal complaints or prosecutions. It held that “…the Magistrate is competent to drop the proceedings against all or any of the relatives of the husband if he, upon going through their response, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in”.

Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not, in the strict sense, criminal in nature, the Court clarified, “as such, a bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings”.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan, the Court reiterated that a notice under Section 12 is issued only to elicit a response so that the Magistrate may pass an appropriate order after hearing both sides, and that the dictum in Adalat Prasad does not apply at that stage.

On this reasoning, the Court held that the petitioners were free to move an application before the trial Magistrate for dropping proceedings. It directed the Magistrate to decide such an application expeditiously and observed that interim compensation orders could also be revisited by the Magistrate if circumstances so warranted.

The Court further directed that if such an application is filed within ten days, proceedings against the other petitioners shall remain stayed until the Magistrate decides the application.

The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Case Title: Reyaz Ahmad Lone & Ors. v. Naziya Hassan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment