Justice Jobin Sebastian was delivering the judgment in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur.

The petitioners, the husband and mother-in-law of the respondent, argued that there was an unexplained delay of approximately six years in invoking the PWDV Act and that the allegations were unsupported by specific acts of domestic violence.

It was further submitted that even though the respondent had lodged a complaint before various authorities against the petitioner, she had not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act during that period. They also relied on the timing of the proceedings, which followed litigation before the Family Court and proceedings concerning a POCSO case, to contend that the complaint was retaliatory.

The respondent contended that the PWDV Act prescribes no period of limitation for an application under Section 12. She also pointed to an allegation of domestic violence in May 2025 and argued that the existence of delay could not establish that the allegations were false.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal [2025 KHC Online 6517] where it was held that High Court's inherent jurisdiction is available to quash proceedings under Section 12 (1) of the PWDV Act.

The Court then examined the contention with regard to delay in invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. It noted that PWDV Act does not contain a provision prescribing a specific period within which an aggrieved person must approach the Magistrate under Section 12, hence a delay in approaching the Magistrate cannot constitute a ground for quashing the proceedings.

“Therefore, mere delay in approaching the Magistrate cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing the proceedings, particularly when the allegations are stated to include acts of domestic violence committed at a later point of time.” Court noted.

The Court clarified that the effect of the delay, the explanation for it, and the circumstances in which the woman remained silent or approached other authorities may be relevant to the appreciation of evidence. Those matters, however, are for the Magistrate to consider while determining the truth of the allegations and the reliefs claimed under the PWDV Act.

The Court further held that the existence of disputed questions of fact or a petitioner's assertion that the allegations are false would not ordinarily justify interference under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court further observed that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the allegations or conduct a "mini-trial" to determine their truth. Since specific allegations constituting acts of domestic violence had been attributed to the petitioners, the question whether those allegations were ultimately true was required to be decided by the jurisdictional Magistrate on the basis of evidence.

The Court found no sufficient ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction, and dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and declined to quash the proceedings pending before the Magistrate.

Case Title: M and Anr. v A

Case No: Crl. MC 5128/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 512

Counsel for Petitioner: Shibin K.F, Renjith B

Counsel for Respondent: Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, Vinod S. Pillai, Nayana Varghese, N.T. Sangeetharaj, Jerry Peter, Navas V.A (Sr. PP)

Click Here To Read/Download Order