Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.122/2013 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri in registering a case against the petitioners herein under Section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DV Act' for short) and issuance of notice against the petitioners.

2. At the time of hearing the matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioners raised two important jurisdictional issues with reference to the order of the trial Court. He argued before the Court that, the respondent has been residing at Bangalore and only for the purpose of harassing these petitioners, she invoked the jurisdiction of Haveri, though the said Court has no jurisdiction and filed the said petition under Domestic Violence Act. The learned Magistrate, without looking into the contents of the petition and without ascertaining whether it has got the jurisdiction to try the matter or not, mechanically issued notice to the respondents. Therefore, on that ground itself, the petition deserves to be quashed. The learned Counsel further contended that the respondent herein has also filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging offences under Section 498-A of IPC and other provisions before the Haveri Police. Subsequently, after coming to know that the allegations contained in the complaint does not come within the jurisdiction of Haveri police, they have transferred the case to Bangalore jurisdictional police for investigation and report. This also shows that the respondent has not been residing at Haveri and only for the purpose of dragging these petitioners to Haveri, a false petition has been filed before the trial Court.

3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously contends that, when the law fixes the jurisdiction of the Court and where the Haveri Court has also got jurisdiction, the petitioner is not debarred from filing the complaint therein. According to Section 27 of the DV Act, the respondent has made out the allegations in the petition and also made allegations that the Haveri Court has also got jurisdiction over the said matter. Secondly, he contends that, merely because a criminal complaint filed by her has been transferred to Bangalore, it does not mean to say for the purpose of DV Act, the Court loses its jurisdiction. It is the police who have taken action, but no Court has passed an order for transferring the said criminal proceedings from the Haveri Police to the Bangalore police. Therefore, Haveri Court has got jurisdiction and the petition filed before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not tenable. Even if the Court has no jurisdiction, it can be challenged before the same Court and if any adverse order is passed, again that order is liable to be questioned before the competent Court. For these reasons, he requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

(2) Any order made this Act shall be enforceable throughout India. "

(emphasis supplied)

5. There are three places, which are prescribed under the above said provision i.e., where a person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed, where the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed or, where the cause of action has arisen. The Court has to see all aspects to ascertain whether the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner is proper or not. It is mentioned in the petition that the respondent herein was working at Bangalore in a private company. She is the daughter of I.G. Churi, who is the resident of Vidyanagar east, 2nd Cross, Haveri. It is also specifically stated in the petition at paragraph 11 that, on 13.01.2013, the petitioners herein quarreled with her and kept her in their house for two days, and thereafter, they brought her back to Haveri and thrown her near her parent's house at Haveri and also threatened her on that spot with dire consequences of killing her etc. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to convince me that no specific averments have been made, on which day she was actually brought back to Haveri etc., but it is evident from the records that, it is only after 13.01.2013, this incident must have happened. It is also supported by document produced by the petitioners themselves before this Court at Annexure-C, which is the complaint lodged by the respondent herein before D.C.P., North Division, Bangalore, wherein she has specifically mentioned that, on 16.01.2013, she was thrown on the cross road of her parent's house at Haveri. Even otherwise, this Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go meticulously word by word mentioned in the complaint. On overall reading of the averments made in the petition, if the Court is of the opinion that the factual allegations made in the petition attracts any of the provisions under the DV Act, then the Court cannot interfere normally under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When it is an admitted fact that the respondent's parental house is at Haveri, it cannot be said that she never visits Haveri Town at any point of time, even though she permanently resides in Bangalore. It is quite natural that the daughter often visits the house of her parents. Therefore, it can be safely held that she also temporarily resides at Haveri so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court at Haveri.

6. Therefore, I am of the opinion, a part of cause of action arouse at Haveri, though in the petition it is mentioned at several places, some incidents have occurred with regard to differences between the respondent and the petitioners.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn my attention to the fact that the learned Magistrate. has not applied his mind before issuance of notice. He argued before me that Section 28 of the DV Act says that;

"all the proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and nothing in Sub-Section (1) shall prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under Sub Section (2) of Section 23 of the DV Act."