Section 33 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the DV Act) punishes a Protection Officer, not the husband or his relatives. If a Protection Officer “fails or refuses to discharge his duties as directed by the Magistrate in the protection order without any sufficient cause”, he or she can be punished with imprisonment of either description for up to one year, or a fine of up to twenty thousand rupees, or both. A prosecution can start only on a complaint filed with the previous sanction of the State Government or an officer it has authorised (Section 34), and nothing done in good faith under the Act can be the basis of a suit or prosecution against the officer (Section 35).
A husband or other respondent who breaks a protection order is punished under a different section, Section 31, with the same maximum. This page explains both, the Protection Officer’s duties, the Domestic Incident Report, and gives a summary in Hindi.
Section 33 DV Act at a glance
- Who: only a Protection Officer appointed by the State Government under Section 8 of the DV Act (Act 43 of 2005, in force since 26 October 2006).
- What failure: failing or refusing, without sufficient cause, to carry out duties “as directed by the Magistrate in the protection order”.
- Punishment: imprisonment of either description up to one year, or fine up to ₹20,000, or both.
- Sanction: a complaint needs the previous sanction of the State Government or an officer it authorises (Section 34).
- Good faith: no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding for damage caused by anything done in good faith under the Act, Rules or an order (Section 35).
- Classification: non-cognizable and bailable (BNSS First Schedule, Part II), unlike the Section 31 offence.
- Husband who breaks a protection order: Section 31 – up to one year, or ₹20,000, or both; cognizable and non-bailable (Section 32).
- Domestic Incident Report: not compulsory before relief is granted, but must be considered if one has been received (Section 12(1) proviso; Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 12 May 2022).
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The DV Act is quoted from India Code’s English text (A2005-43, which shows no amendment after 2019) and its official Hindi text (H2005-43), the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 from the Gazette copy on India Code, the BNSS and BNS from India Code (as on 6 October 2025), and the judgment from the Supreme Court’s own copy.
Section 33 DV Act: the exact text
Section 33 is in Chapter V (“Miscellaneous”) of the Act. It reads:
“33. Penalty for not discharging duty by Protection Officer.—If any Protection Officer fails or refuses to discharge his duties as directed by the Magistrate in the protection order without any sufficient cause, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.”
The earlier version of this post misquoted it as “to discharges his duties”. The section has not been amended. Sections 34 (sanction) and 35 (good faith) follow it.
The section word by word
- “any Protection Officer” – an officer appointed under Section 8(1) (Section 2(n)); not the police, a service provider or the respondent.
- “fails or refuses” – both an omission and an open refusal are covered.
- “his duties as directed by the Magistrate in the protection order” – a “protection order” is “an order made in terms of section 18” (Section 2(o)). The Act does not say whether a direction in another kind of order, such as a residence order, is covered.
- “without any sufficient cause” – not defined; whether a reason was sufficient is a question of fact for the court.
- “imprisonment of either description” – rigorous or simple, the two descriptions in Section 4(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
- “may extend to one year … twenty thousand rupees, or with both” – maximums; there is no minimum sentence.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Sections 2, 8, 31, 33, 34 and 35 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (India Code) and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Who is a Protection Officer?
Under Section 8(1) the State Government “shall, by notification, appoint such number of Protection Officers in each district as it may consider necessary” and notify the area in which each officer works. Section 8(2) says they “shall as far as possible be women”.
Under rule 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006, Protection Officers “may be of the Government or members of non-governmental organizations”, with preference to women; each “shall have at least three years experience in social sector”; and the tenure “shall be a minimum period of three years”. Appointment is by the State Government (Section 8(1)); this page does not cover recruitment or examinations for these posts.
Section 30 deems Protection Officers, while acting under the Act, to be “public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code” – now Section 2(28) BNS (formerly Section 21 IPC). Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads a reference to a repealed and re-enacted provision as a reference to the new one, “unless a different intention appears”.
Duties of a Protection Officer: Section 9 and the 2006 Rules
Section 9(1) lists the duties, and Section 9(2) places the officer “under the control and supervision of the Magistrate”.
| Section 9(1) | Duty of the Protection Officer |
|---|---|
| (a) | Assist the Magistrate in the discharge of his functions under the Act. |
| (b) | Make a domestic incident report to the Magistrate on receiving a complaint of domestic violence, and send copies to the officer in charge of the police station and to service providers in the area. |
| (c) | If the woman so desires, apply to the Magistrate for a protection order. |
| (d) | Ensure legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and give the complaint form free of cost. |
| (e) | Keep a list of service providers giving legal aid or counselling, shelter homes and medical facilities in the area. |
| (f) | Make a safe shelter home available if she needs it, and report the lodging to the police station and the Magistrate. |
| (g) | Get her medically examined if she has bodily injuries, and send the medical report to the police station and the Magistrate. |
| (h) | Ensure that the order for monetary relief under Section 20 is complied with and executed. |
| (i) | Perform such other duties as may be prescribed. |
Under Section 13 the Protection Officer also serves the notice of hearing on the respondent “within a maximum period of two days” or such further time as the Magistrate allows.
Rule 8: the fourteen further duties
Rule 8(1) of the 2006 Rules adds fourteen duties. In short: help the woman make a complaint and any application under Section 12 or 23(2); tell her of her rights in Form IV; prepare a “Safety Plan” with her in Form V; provide legal aid “through the State Legal Aid Services Authority”; help with medical aid and transport to a medical facility or shelter; prepare the list of counsellors for the Magistrate; keep records; ensure she “is not victimized or pressurized as a consequence of reporting”; and liaise with the police and service providers.
Rule 8(2) adds the widest duties: “to protect the aggrieved persons from domestic violence” and “to take all reasonable measures to prevent recurrence”.
Rules 9 and 10: emergencies and duties directed by the Magistrate
In an emergency (rule 9), the officer “shall seek immediate assistance of the police”, go to the place, record the domestic incident report and present it to the Magistrate “without any delay”.
Rule 10 is closest to Section 33. It lists what the officer must do “if directed to do so in writing, by the Magistrate”: a home visit and preliminary enquiry; a report on emoluments, assets, bank accounts or other documents as the court directs; restoring her personal effects, “including gifts and jewellery”, and the shared household; helping her regain custody of children; assisting in enforcing orders under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 or 23; and taking police help to confiscate any weapon involved.
When Section 33 applies, and when it does not
Section 33 is not a general penalty for every lapse. On its words it needs three things together:
- a duty directed by the Magistrate in the protection order;
- a failure or refusal by the Protection Officer to carry it out; and
- no sufficient cause for that failure or refusal.
A failure to make a domestic incident report (Section 9(1)(b)) or to serve notice within the time in Section 13(1) is a lapse in the officer’s duties. In the firm’s reading of the words of Section 33, it is not by itself an offence unless the Magistrate directed that step in the protection order. For such lapses the Act places the officer under the Magistrate’s supervision (Section 9(2)), and the Magistrate can give written directions (rule 10); the officer’s terms of service are prescribed under Section 8(3).
Section 33 also has an inbuilt defence. An officer who had sufficient cause does not commit the offence; whether a reason is enough is for the court to decide on the evidence.
Prosecuting a Protection Officer: sanction under Section 34
Section 34 is headed “Cognizance of offence committed by Protection Officer” and reads: “No prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Protection Officer unless a complaint is filed with the previous sanction of the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf.”
The sanction must be obtained before the complaint is filed, from the State Government or an officer it has authorised, and the bar covers any “prosecution or other legal proceeding”. The Act does not say who must file the complaint.
Which court, cognizable or not, and the time limit
The Judicial Magistrate of the first class or Metropolitan Magistrate is the court “to try offences under this Act” (Section 27(1)). Section 32(1) makes only the Section 31 offence cognizable and non-bailable. Offences under other laws are dealt with under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (Section 4(2)), and Part II of its First Schedule classifies an offence “punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only” as “Non-cognizable. Bailable.” So the Section 33 offence is non-cognizable and bailable.
For the time limit, Section 514(2)(b) BNSS (formerly Section 468 CrPC) allows one year for an offence “punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year”. The year runs from the date of the offence or, where the offence was not known to the person aggrieved or the police, from the first day it came to the knowledge of either, whichever is earlier (Section 515(1)), up to “the date of filing complaint under section 223” (Explanation to Section 514, new in the BNSS). Section 516(3) BNSS (formerly Section 470 CrPC) excludes “the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction”. A court may still take cognizance after the period if “the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice” (Section 519). The DV Act has no separate time limit for Section 33.
On any complaint, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance “without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard” (first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS). Because a Protection Officer is deemed a public servant, Section 223(2) BNSS (formerly Section 200 CrPC; the sub-section is new) is also likely to be relevant: before taking cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for acts in official duty, the Magistrate must give him “an opportunity to make assertions” and receive a report from his superior officer. No court decision applying Section 223(2) to a Section 33 complaint is cited here.
Protection for action in good faith: Section 35
Section 35 reads: “No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Protection Officer for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder.” Section 10(3) gives service providers a similar protection for good-faith acts.
The DV Act does not define “good faith”. Under Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which applies to Central Acts, “a thing shall be deemed to be done in ‘good faith’ where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not” (the stricter BNS definition in Section 2(11) is for the BNS itself). Read together, Sections 33 and 35 suggest, in the firm’s reading, that honest action under the Act is protected while a failure or refusal without sufficient cause can be punished. Where an honest but negligent failure falls is not settled by the Act: Section 3(2) of the General Clauses Act says that “words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions”, and no judgment on the point has been checked for this page.
Section 31: penalty on a husband who breaks a protection order
Most people who search for a “DV Act punishment” want Section 31, not Section 33. Section 31(1) says: “A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.”
The offence is, “as far as practicable”, tried by the Magistrate who passed the order (Section 31(2)). While framing that charge, the Magistrate may also frame charges under Section 85 BNS (formerly Section 498A IPC, which the Act still names) or any other provision of the penal code, or under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, if the facts disclose those offences (Section 31(3)). Under Section 32 the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, and “upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude” that it has been committed. A protection order under Section 18 stays in force “till the aggrieved person applies for discharge” (Section 25(1)).
Under rule 15 of the 2006 Rules the woman may report the breach in writing to the Protection Officer, who forwards it to the Magistrate, or complain “directly to the Magistrate or the Police”; the officer “shall immediately rescue her by seeking help from the local police station” if she asks. Resistance to enforcement of the court’s orders is deemed a breach (rule 15(7)), and bail may carry conditions such as no contact with her (rule 15(9)). The firm’s tool to find your ACP, DCP office and CAW Cell by police station in Delhi may help in locating the right police office.
| Point | Section 31 (respondent) | Section 33 (Protection Officer) |
|---|---|---|
| What is punished | Breach of a protection order or interim protection order | Failing or refusing, without sufficient cause, to carry out the Magistrate’s directions in the protection order |
| Maximum punishment | 1 year, or ₹20,000 fine, or both | 1 year, or ₹20,000 fine, or both |
| Cognizable / bailable | Cognizable and non-bailable (Section 32(1)) | Non-cognizable and bailable (BNSS First Schedule, Part II) |
| Sanction needed | No | Yes – State Government or authorised officer (Section 34) |
| Special rule of proof | Sole testimony of the woman may suffice (Section 32(2)) | None in the Act |
Is a Domestic Incident Report necessary?
No. A Domestic Incident Report (DIR) is made in Form I by the Protection Officer on receiving a complaint, or by a service provider if the woman asks (Sections 2(e), 9(1)(b) and 10(2)(a); rule 5). The proviso to Section 12(1) says “the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.”
In Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022, decided on 12 May 2022 by Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna), the Supreme Court held: “Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act. It is clarified that even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order under the provisions of the D.V. Act.” Where a report has been received, “it is mandatory for the Magistrate to consider the report”.
The Court added that “An aggrieved person can directly make an application to the jurisdictional Magistrate by herself or by engaging the services of an Advocate”, and held that she need not have been living with the respondents when the violence occurred, and that, although there must have been a domestic relationship at the time of the alleged violence, it need not still exist when she applies. On the right to live in the shared household, see the firm’s page on Section 17 of the DV Act: the right to reside in the shared household.
Shelter homes and medical facilities also may not refuse help because no DIR has been lodged (provisos to rules 16(2) and 17(2)).
Section 33 under other laws: which “Section 33” are you looking for?
Many searches for “Section 33” are about other laws. The firm’s IPC to BNS and CrPC to BNSS comparison tool gives the old and new numbers.
| Law | What Section 33 deals with |
|---|---|
| DV Act, 2005 | Penalty for not discharging duty by Protection Officer (this page) |
| BNSS, 2023 | “Public to give information of certain offences” (formerly Section 39 CrPC) |
| CrPC, 1973 (repealed) | Powers of officers appointed – now Section 27 BNSS |
| BNS, 2023 | “Act causing slight harm” |
| BSA, 2023 | What evidence is to be given when a statement forms part of a conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers |
For the whole Act – who can file, the reliefs under Sections 18 to 22, the court, appeals and timelines – see the firm’s guide to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम की धारा 33 – हिंदी में सारांश (Summary in Hindi)
घरेलू हिंसा से महिला संरक्षण अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 33 पति या उसके रिश्तेदारों को नहीं, बल्कि संरक्षण अधिकारी (Protection Officer) को दंड देती है। अधिनियम के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ (India Code पर प्रकाशित) में धारा 33 इस प्रकार है:
“33. संरक्षण अधिकारी द्वारा कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन न करने के लिए शास्ति—यदि कोई संरक्षण अधिकारी, संरक्षण आदेश में मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा यथा निदेशित अपने कर्तव्यों का, किसी पर्याप्त हेतुक के बिना, निर्वहन करने में असफल रहता है या इंकार करता है, तो वह दोनों में से किसी भांति के कारावास से, जिसकी अवधि एक वर्ष तक की हो सकेगी या जुर्माने से, जो बीस हजार रुपए तक का हो सकेगा या दोनों से, दंडित किया जाएगा ।”
सरल शब्दों में: यदि मजिस्ट्रेट ने संरक्षण आदेश (धारा 18 का आदेश) में संरक्षण अधिकारी को कोई काम करने का निदेश दिया है और अधिकारी बिना पर्याप्त कारण के वह काम नहीं करता या करने से मना कर देता है, तो उसे एक वर्ष तक का कारावास (कठोर या सादा), या बीस हजार रुपए तक का जुर्माना, या दोनों हो सकते हैं। यह अधिकतम सजा है; कोई न्यूनतम सजा नहीं है।
धारा 34 के अनुसार परिवाद (complaint) दायर करने से पहले राज्य सरकार या उसके द्वारा प्राधिकृत अधिकारी की पूर्व मंजूरी जरूरी है। आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ: “34. संरक्षण अधिकारी द्वारा किए गए अपराध का संज्ञान—संरक्षण अधिकारी के विरुद्ध कोई अभियोजन या अन्य विधिक कार्यवाही तब तक नहीं होगी जब तक राज्य सरकार या इस निमित्त उसके द्वारा प्राधिकृत किसी अधिकारी की पूर्व मंजूरी से कोई परिवाद फाइल नहीं किया जाता है ।”
धारा 35 सद्भावपूर्वक किए गए काम को सुरक्षा देती है: “इस अधिनियम या उसके अधीन बनाए गए किसी नियम या किए गए आदेश के अधीन सद्भावपूर्वक की गई या की जाने के लिए आशयित किसी बात से कारित या कारित होने के लिए संभाव्य किसी नुकसान के लिए कोई भी वाद, अभियोजन या अन्य विधिक कार्यवाही संरक्षण अधिकारी के विरुद्ध नहीं होगी ।” जनरल क्लॉज़ेज़ एक्ट (General Clauses Act), 1897 की धारा 3(22) के अनुसार कोई काम सद्भावपूर्वक तब माना जाता है जब वह वास्तव में ईमानदारी से किया गया हो, चाहे उसमें लापरवाही हुई हो या नहीं।
संरक्षण अधिकारी कौन होता है: राज्य सरकार अधिसूचना द्वारा हर जिले में संरक्षण अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है, और जहां तक संभव हो वे महिलाएं होती हैं (धारा 8)। 2006 के नियम 3 के अनुसार उनके पास सामाजिक क्षेत्र में कम से कम तीन वर्ष का अनुभव होना चाहिए और उनका कार्यकाल कम से कम तीन वर्ष का होता है। धारा 30 के अनुसार अधिनियम के अधीन काम करते समय वे लोक सेवक समझे जाते हैं।
संरक्षण अधिकारी के मुख्य कर्तव्य (धारा 9 और नियम 8): मजिस्ट्रेट की सहायता करना; शिकायत मिलने पर घरेलू घटना रिपोर्ट बनाकर मजिस्ट्रेट को देना और उसकी प्रतियां पुलिस थाने और सेवा प्रदाताओं को भेजना; महिला चाहे तो संरक्षण आदेश के लिए आवेदन करना; मुफ्त कानूनी सहायता दिलाना; आश्रय गृह और चिकित्सा जांच की व्यवस्था करना; भरण-पोषण या आर्थिक राहत के आदेश का पालन करवाना; और महिला के साथ मिलकर “सेफ्टी प्लान” बनाना। ये कर्तव्य मजिस्ट्रेट के नियंत्रण और पर्यवेक्षण में निभाए जाते हैं।
पति द्वारा संरक्षण आदेश तोड़ना: यह धारा 33 नहीं, धारा 31 का अपराध है। इसमें भी एक वर्ष तक का कारावास या बीस हजार रुपए तक का जुर्माना या दोनों हो सकते हैं, और धारा 32 के अनुसार यह अपराध संज्ञेय और अजमानतीय है। महिला अपनी शिकायत संरक्षण अधिकारी, मजिस्ट्रेट या सीधे पुलिस को दे सकती है (नियम 15)। इसके विपरीत, धारा 33 का अपराध संज्ञेय या अजमानतीय घोषित नहीं किया गया है, इसलिए BNSS की प्रथम अनुसूची के भाग II के सामान्य नियम से यह असंज्ञेय और जमानतीय है।
क्या घरेलू घटना रिपोर्ट जरूरी है: नहीं। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने प्रभा त्यागी बनाम कमलेश देवी (12 मई 2022) में कहा कि रिपोर्ट के बिना भी मजिस्ट्रेट अंतरिम, एकपक्षीय या अंतिम आदेश दे सकता है; लेकिन यदि रिपोर्ट मिली है तो मजिस्ट्रेट को उस पर विचार करना होगा। महिला स्वयं या वकील के माध्यम से सीधे मजिस्ट्रेट के पास आवेदन कर सकती है। ऊपर उद्धृत धाराओं के अलावा यह सारांश फर्म का अपना सरल विवरण है।
Frequently asked questions
Under Section 33 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: imprisonment of either description up to one year, or a fine up to ₹20,000, or both. It applies only where the officer fails or refuses, without sufficient cause, to carry out duties “as directed by the Magistrate in the protection order”, and under Section 34 the complaint needs the previous sanction of the State Government or an officer authorised by it.
Under Section 31 of the DV Act, breach of a protection order or interim protection order by the respondent is punishable with imprisonment of either description up to one year, or a fine up to ₹20,000, or both. Section 32 makes it cognizable and non-bailable, and the court may convict on the woman’s sole testimony. Charges under Section 85 BNS (formerly Section 498A IPC) or the Dowry Prohibition Act may be framed with it.
No. In Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (12 May 2022) the Supreme Court held that Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report, and that even without one the Magistrate can pass ex parte, interim and final orders. If a Protection Officer or service provider has sent a report, the Magistrate must consider it (proviso to Section 12(1)).
Section 33 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, “Penalty for not discharging duty by Protection Officer”, punishes a Protection Officer who, without sufficient cause, fails or refuses to carry out the duties the Magistrate directed in a protection order. The maximum is one year’s imprisonment, a ₹20,000 fine, or both.
No. Section 34 of the DV Act says: “No prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Protection Officer unless a complaint is filed with the previous sanction of the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf.” The sanction must come before the complaint is filed.
The DV Act does not define “sufficient cause”. A Protection Officer is punishable only if there was no adequate reason for not carrying out the Magistrate’s direction; whether the reason given was sufficient is a question of fact that the court decides on the evidence in each case.
It is non-cognizable and bailable. Section 32(1) of the DV Act makes only the Section 31 offence cognizable and non-bailable. For Section 33 the general rule applies: under Section 4(2) and Part II of the First Schedule to the BNSS, an offence under another law punishable with imprisonment for less than three years is non-cognizable and bailable.
Under Section 27(1) of the DV Act, the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate is the competent court “to try offences under this Act”. The Act’s local-limit tests in Section 27(1) are written around the aggrieved woman and the respondent, and it does not spell out how they apply to a complaint against a Protection Officer. The complaint must carry the sanction required by Section 34.
The DV Act has no separate time limit. Section 514(2)(b) BNSS (formerly Section 468 CrPC) allows one year for an offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year, counted from the offence (or from when it first became known to the person aggrieved or the police, if it was not known earlier) to the date the complaint is filed (Sections 514 Explanation and 515). The time taken to obtain the sanction is excluded (Section 516(3) BNSS, formerly Section 470 CrPC), and the court may take cognizance later if the delay is properly explained or in the interests of justice (Section 519).
Under Section 9: assist the Magistrate, make a domestic incident report and send copies to the police and service providers, apply for a protection order if the woman wishes, ensure free legal aid, keep lists of service providers, shelters and medical facilities, arrange shelter and medical examination, and ensure monetary relief orders are obeyed. Rules 8 and 10 of the 2006 Rules add more, such as a “Safety Plan”.
The State Government appoints Protection Officers by notification for each district, as far as possible women (Section 8). Under rule 3 of the 2006 Rules they may be Government officers or members of non-governmental organisations, need at least three years’ experience in the social sector, and hold office for at least three years. This page does not cover recruitment or examinations for these posts.
Yes, while acting or purporting to act under the Act, the Rules or orders. Section 30 of the DV Act deems Protection Officers and members of service providers to be public servants “within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code”, whose definition is now Section 2(28) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 21 IPC).
Section 35 bars any suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding against a Protection Officer for damage caused by anything done or intended to be done in good faith under the Act, Rules or orders. Under Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, an act is in good faith if done honestly, whether negligently or not. How this protection fits with Section 33, which punishes a failure without sufficient cause, is not spelt out in the Act; it is a question for the court in each case.
Yes. Section 12(1) lets the aggrieved person herself, a Protection Officer or anyone on her behalf apply to the Magistrate. In Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022) the Supreme Court said she “can directly make an application to the jurisdictional Magistrate by herself or by engaging the services of an Advocate”, and that notice can issue without a Domestic Incident Report.
Under rule 15 of the 2006 Rules she may report the breach in writing to the Protection Officer, who forwards it with the order to the Magistrate, or complain directly to the Magistrate or the police. If she asks for help, the Protection Officer must at once seek help from the local police station. The breach is dealt with as a cognizable offence under Sections 31 and 32.
No. Section 33 of the DV Act is the penalty on a Protection Officer. Section 33 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is “Public to give information of certain offences” (formerly Section 39 CrPC). Old Section 33 CrPC is now Section 27 BNSS, and Section 33 BNS deals with an act causing slight harm.
Conclusion
Section 33 makes the Protection Officer answerable to the court: failing or refusing, without sufficient cause, to carry out the Magistrate’s directions in a protection order can bring up to one year’s imprisonment, a ₹20,000 fine, or both, subject to the sanction rule in Section 34 and the good-faith protection in Section 35.
For a woman facing domestic violence, she can apply to the Magistrate directly, a Domestic Incident Report is not a precondition for relief, and a respondent who breaks a protection order commits a cognizable, non-bailable offence under Section 31.
Sources used for this post: the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act 43 of 2005), Sections 2(e), (n) and (o), 8, 9, 10(2) and (3), 12, 13, 18, 25, 27, 28, 30 to 35 and 37 (India Code, English text A2005-43, with the 2019 amendment, and the official Hindi text H2005-43); the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006, rules 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 (Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(i), notification of the Ministry of Women and Child Development dated 17 October 2006, as on India Code); the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4, 5, 27, 33, 223, 514, 515, 516, 519 and 531 and the First Schedule, Part II, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 2(11), 2(28), 4, 33, 85 and 358 (India Code, as on 6 October 2025); the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 33 (India Code); the General Clauses Act, 1897, Sections 3(2), 3(22) and 8 (India Code); the firm’s Gazette-checked IPC–BNS and CrPC–BNSS comparison data; and the Supreme Court’s official copy of Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022, judgment of 12 May 2022 (official copy).
