[DV Act] Limitation U/S 468 CrPC Does Not Apply To Seeking Protection Orders, Only To Penal Proceedings U/S 31: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 514 of BNSS, 2023) is not applicable to applications filed under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

These sections under the DV Act entitle the aggrieved women to claim reliefs such as protection orders, residence orders etc or interim or ex-parte reliefs.

The Court, however, clarified that the limitation provisions apply only to penal proceedings for breach of protection orders under Section 31 of the DV Act.

A bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary, while dismissing a petition challenging maintainability of an application under Section 12 of the DV Act on the ground of limitation, observed:

“The contention made on behalf of the petitioner wrongly equated filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of a prosecution… The bar of limitation will be applicable only to the penal proceedings under Section 31 of the Act… However, there cannot be any bar to maintaining an application under other provisions including Sections 12 and 23 of the DV Act.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayan and Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, which held that proceedings under Section 12 are not criminal complaints within the meaning of Section 2(d) CrPC and that limitation under Section 468 CrPC applies only to offences punishable under Section 31 for breach of protection orders.

The judgment also noted the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 where it was held that although proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are predominantly civil in nature, a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging such proceedings is maintainable, but the High Court must exercise caution and interfere only in cases of gross illegality or injustice.

Concluding that the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner was misconceived, the Court dismissed the petition along with connected applications and directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously in the matter.

APPEARANCE:

Case-Law: .Tilak Raj vs Darshana Devi, 2025

Mr. C. M. Koul, Sr. Adv with Mr. A R Bhat, Advocate for petitioners

Ajay Bakshi, Advocate for Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order