The Allahabad High Court has clarified that proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are amenable to compounding where parties have entered into a genuine settlement, reinforcing the principle that civil disputes arising from matrimonial discord should not be rigidly pursued when reconciliation is possible.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Bindu Devi @ Bindu Dubey and three others, are the mother-in-law and other family members of the opposite party, Anju Devi. The dispute arose from alleged domestic violence by the applicants against Anju Devi, leading to the filing of Criminal Case No. 0638/2024 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, at Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra. The case was initiated in the court of the Civil Judge (J.D./F.T.C./C.A.W.), Sonbhadra.
Key Facts
- The husband and father-in-law of opposite party no.2 (Anju Devi) are deceased.
- The applicants and Anju Devi have since entered into a compromise, resolving their differences.
- A compounding application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed by Anju Devi on 29.01.2026, seeking to withdraw the criminal proceeding.
- The compounding application is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application.
- A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent has also been filed, indicating a broader effort at reconciliation.
- No objection was raised by counsel for opposite party no.2 regarding the applicants’ submission on compromise.
Procedural History
- 04/07/2024: Cognizance taken by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 0638/2024 under Section 12 DV Act.
- 29.01.2026: Compounding application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
- 15.03.2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of cognizance and all proceedings.
- 15.05.2026: Hearing before the High Court; parties presented their positions.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 04/07/2024 and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 0638/2024, on the ground that the dispute has been resolved through mutual compromise and the offence is compoundable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are compoundable upon mutual settlement between the parties, and whether the High Court may direct the trial court to decide such a compounding application.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for the applicants submitted that Section 12 of the DV Act creates a civil remedy for protection and does not constitute a criminal offence in the traditional sense. He argued that the nature of the dispute is purely matrimonial and familial, and where parties have reconciled, the court should facilitate settlement. He relied on the filing of the compounding application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the pendency of a Section 13-B petition under the Hindu Marriage Act as evidence of genuine compromise. He contended that the spirit of the DV Act is protective, not punitive, and should not be used to perpetuate acrimony where reconciliation has occurred.
For the Respondent/State
The learned Additional Government Advocate and counsel for opposite party no.2 did not oppose the application. The State did not contest the maintainability of the compounding application or the propriety of allowing settlement in such cases.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act are not criminal prosecutions in the conventional sense but are civil proceedings designed to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic abuse. The Act is remedial and protective in nature, and its provisions are intended to facilitate resolution rather than punishment.
"The offence in which dispute relates to matrimonial and instituted on account of disagreement between the parties, i.e., between in-laws in that cases, chances of compounding or settlement between the parties develop, as such, if such situation occurs and the parties are ready to compromise, the court should give an opportunity to the parties to settle the matter."
The Court noted that the parties have not only filed a compounding application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but have also initiated proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, indicating a comprehensive effort to resolve their differences. The absence of objection from the opposite party further supports the genuineness of the compromise.
The Court emphasized that rigid adherence to procedural formality in cases of domestic disputes, where reconciliation is possible, defeats the very purpose of the DV Act. The court must encourage settlement and avoid prolonging litigation where the aggrieved party herself seeks to withdraw the complaint.
The Verdict
The application under Section 528 BNSS was disposed of with the direction that the trial court shall decide the compounding application filed on 29.01.2026, and any related compromise application, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, after affording a hearing to both parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compounding Is Permissible in DV Act Proceedings
- Practitioners may now file compounding applications under Section 320 Cr.P.C. in cases initiated under Section 12 DV Act where the complainant consents to settlement.
- Courts must treat such applications with leniency, especially where the complainant is the victim and seeks withdrawal.
- The pendency of a mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13-B HMA strengthens the case for compounding.
Civil Nature of DV Act Proceedings Overrides Criminal Formalities
- Section 12 DV Act proceedings are not equivalent to criminal trials under IPC; they are civil protection orders.
- The focus must remain on the welfare of the victim and the possibility of reconciliation, not on punitive outcomes.
- Courts should not mechanically reject compounding applications merely because the proceeding is titled "criminal".
Judicial Discretion to Facilitate Settlement Is Paramount
- High Courts may direct trial courts to decide compounding applications expeditiously, as done here with a four-week deadline.
- Delay in deciding such applications defeats the purpose of the DV Act and prolongs trauma.
- Legal practitioners should proactively file compromise applications and seek judicial direction for expeditious disposal when reconciliation is evident.
