The Kerala High Court has held that a delay in approaching the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) cannot, by itself, be a reason to quash proceedings alleging domestic violence.
Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the order on September 10, 2026, while considering a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur.
Background
The petitioners, who were the respondents in M.C. No.32/2025, sought quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. The first petitioner is the husband of the respondent, while the second petitioner is his mother.
They argued that the allegations were false and lacked specific details of alleged domestic violence. They also relied on the delay in approaching the Magistrate, earlier proceedings between the parties before different forums and the circumstances surrounding a POCSO case involving the first petitioner.
The respondent opposed the petition, contending that the allegations disclosed a continuing cause of action and included an alleged incident of domestic violence in May 2025. She also argued that the PWDV Act does not prescribe a limitation period for approaching the Magistrate under Section 12.
The High Court examined the scope of its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that this power can be exercised to prevent abuse of the court process or secure the ends of justice, but it must be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.
Referring to earlier decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, the Court observed that proceedings under the PWDV Act can be quashed in appropriate cases, but interference requires circumstances such as gross illegality or manifest injustice.
The Court specifically found that the PWDV Act contains no provision prescribing a specific period for filing an application under Section 12.
“Mere delay in approaching the Magistrate cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing the proceedings.”
The Court further held that questions concerning the delay, earlier complaints, the POCSO proceedings and the timing of the domestic violence case could be considered by the Magistrate while assessing the evidence.
The High Court found no sufficient ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Crl.M.C. No. 5128 of 2026
Case Title: MW & Anr. v. AM
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 5128 of 2026
Judge: Justice Jobin Sebastian
Decision Date: September 10, 2026
