Giduthuri Kesari Kumar v State of Telangana, (2013) 4 SCC 176
The core issue which was dealt with in this matter was the applicability of section 482 of CrPC (quashing of proceedings). The Hon’ble Single Judge examined since reliefs u/s 18 to 22 of the DV Act are civil nature, whether the respondents can seek for quashing of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and that continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court. The court held that since the DV Act provides for civil reliefs and the magistrates are free to lay down their own procedure by not taking coercive steps and since it is not a criminal trial, the original respondents cannot rush with an application under section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in as a party. The court further held that only in exceptional cases, section 482 of CrPC can be invoked. The respondents can establish their non involvement in the matter in the civil proceedings before the magistrate. Hence, petitions filed for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in as a party are not maintainable
Suo Motu v Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry, MANU/GJ/1108/2015
In this case, the Gujarat High Court looked into the applicability of section 482 in proceedings under the DV Act and held that on reading the DV Act it is evident that the CrPC is applicable with respect to procedure to be followed, appeal to the sessions court and penal provisions u/s 31 and 32. The provisions of the Act provide for remedial measures for civil rights of women but the machinery provided is through a criminal court. The court held that section 482 of CrPC will be applicable to proceedings under the DV Act subject to the express provision for appeal under the Act and when no case is made out for abuse of process of the Court.
Narendra Kumar v State of Gujarat, 2016 ALLMR (Cri) 398
The petitioner invoked section 482 of CrPC to quash the proceedings under sections 18,19, 20 and 21 of the DV Act. The Gujarat High Court held that the proceedings u/s 12, 18 to 23 and 31 of the DV Act would not ipso facto attract section 482 of CrPC. Further while adopting the provision of CrPC, the DV Act intends to apply procedures necessary for passing orders for securing the civil rights contemplated u/s 12, 18 to 23 of the DV Act. The magistrate is competent to deal with the proceedings arising under DV Act and the sessions court is contemplated as competent appellate authority. The court further commented that merely because judicial authorities contemplated under the CrPC are competent to deal with the proceedings arising out of the DV Act, it cannot be argued that such proceedings deal with crime.