Case BriefsHigh Courts

In the present case, the petitioner has wrongly equated filing an application under Section 12 of DV Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of a prosecution. However, such application cannot be equated with a complaint within the meaning of Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

High Courts inherent jurisdiction DV Act
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect”.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., examines whether an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on behalf of

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J., allowed the petition and directed that there cannot be any proceedings against the petitioner under

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: S.M. Subramaniam, J., held that Protraction and prolongation of litigations affecting women can never be encouraged by the Courts.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., dismissed a criminal revision application filed against the order of the trial court whereby the application