Kerala High Court: In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) against interim order passed by the Grama Nyayalaya, Vellanadu, the Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J. held that a petition seeking the exercise of inherent powers to set aside an interim order passed under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘PWDV Act’), was not maintainable in the absence of any blatant irregularity or manifest illegality in the said order.
The Registry has noted a defect that the maintainability of this petition under Section 528 of BNSS has to be looked into since appeal is provided under Section 29 of the PWDV Act.
The Court took note of V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma (Dr.) v. Bindu V., 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 6448, wherein the Court held that the extra ordinary inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) cannot be exercised to quash the interim orders passed by Magistrates under Sections 18 to 23 of PWDV Act, since such an order is neither necessary to give effect to any order under the Code nor to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
Further, in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, the Supreme Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of proceedings, made it clear that the High Courts ought to be extremely slow and circumspect in interfering with orders passed under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was further observed that unless the courts exercised restraint in invoking their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, in matters arising under the PWDV Act, the very object and purpose of the enactment would stand defeated.
The Court observed that the essence of the law was that only in cases involving manifest illegality and blatant irregularity in the proceedings would the High Court be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to interfere with or unsettle the orders passed by the Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Court observed that, as far as the present case was concerned, the interim order passed by the Magistrate could not be said to suffer from gross illegality or irregularity. It noted that the petitioner could very well have approached the same court seeking modification or vacating of the said order, provided there were sufficient reasons for the same. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that an appeal was available under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the said order.
In light of the above, the Court held that it was not possible to exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to interfere with the interim order passed by the Magistrate. The defect noted by the Registry was found to be sustainable.
Accordingly, the Registry was directed to return the petition to the petitioner.
[Titus v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4611, decided on 01-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: M.R.Sarin
For Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
