IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5959 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
1. SHYAMLAL DEVDA S/O DHANARAM DEVADA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SHOBA BAI W/O SHYAMLAL DEVDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SHANKARLAL S/O DHANARAM DEVDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. INDRADEVI W/O SHANKARLAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O DHANARAM DEVDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 6. ROOPA W/O SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.30 (OLD NO.20) PALLIARASU STREET, EAST ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU-600102 7. DHANARAM S/O LATE RAMLAL AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 8. MOTIBAI W/O DHANARAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 9. TULSIRAM S/O DHANARAM DEVADA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 10. SUDHA W/O TULSIRAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PETITIONER 7-10 ARE RESIDENTS OF SISARWADA VILLAGE, VIA-SOJAT ROAD, PALI DISTRICT RAJASTHAN-306103 11. DUNGARAM S/O DHANARAM DEVADA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 12. CHETAN S/O DHANARAM DEVADA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, PETITIONER NO. 11 AND 12 R/AT NO.113, KHODIYAR ROW HOUSE, GODADARANER GODADARA, SURAT, GUJARAT-395010 13. SAPNA W/O ROOPESH PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.98 RESHMA ROW HOUSE, MAGOB PUNA PATAYA, SURAT, GUJARAT-395010 14. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHYAMALA DEVDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.30(OLD NO.20) PALLIARASU STREET, EAST ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU-600102 ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT: PRAMILA NESARGI. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI: SHIVA SHANKAR C, ADVOCATE) AND PARIMALA W/O MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.21/1, 9TH CROSS, CUBBONPET, BANGALORE-560002 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: GOPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.MIS.NO.53/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MMTC-VI, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in C.Mis.No.53/2015 on the file of MMTC-VI at Bengaluru.
2. Respondent herein claiming to be a victim of domestic violence, sought for protection order under section 18, residence order under section 19 and an order to direct petitioners herein to pay monthly monetary relief under section 20 and compensation order under section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) for the alleged domestic violence meted out to her by the petitioners herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a reading of the complaint indicates that all the offences have taken place beyond the territorial limits of the learned Magistrate at Bengaluru. Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 and 14 are the residents of Tamil Nadu. Petitioner Nos.7 to 10 are the residents of Rajasthan and petitioner Nos.11 to 13 are the residents of Gujarat. There are no specific averments as to the place where the alleged instances of domestic violence had taken place. Merely on the ground that the respondent/complainant is a resident of Bengaluru city, the proceedings are instituted in Bengaluru. Hence, initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners is contrary to section 28 of the Act.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners has emphasized that, learned Metropolitan Magistrate gets jurisdiction to enquire into the alleged instances of domestic violence provided the offence has taken place within the territorial limits of the court. In the absence of any averments to that effect, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the instant case. Therefore, there is a case for quashing of the entire proceedings.
5. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent submits that by virtue of section 27 of the Act, the place where the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed, confers jurisdiction on the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. In the instant case, respondent undisputedly is residing within the territorial limits of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Bengaluru city. Even earlier to her marriage, she was the native of Bengaluru city. Petitioners were the natives of Rajasthan who gradually migrated to different cities in the country. The respondent belongs to a larger joint family and wherever she resided with the petitioners, she was subjected to domestic violence. Hence, petition has been properly instituted and therefore, there is no reason to quash the proceedings on the purported plea set up by the petitioners.
6. Considered the averments made in the complaint.
As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, there are no specific averments in the entire complaint as to the place where domestic violence had taken place against the respondent. The only averment made in the petition is that the respondent/complainant is a native of Bengaluru, her family resides in Cubbonpet, Bengaluru and they hail from the village of Dudod, Rajastan. According to the respondent/complainant, her marriage was performed in Rajasthan. Various instances of domestic violence are narrated by her at different places at Chennai, Rajasthan and Gujarat. But insofar as the jurisdiction to try the offences under the Act is concerned, in my view, section 27 of the Act covers the situation. The said section reads as under:
Section 27 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 27. Jurisdiction.— (1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which— (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (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.
7. A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that in order to maintain a petition under the provision of the Act, the applicant should be residing either permanently or temporarily within the territorial limits of the Magistrate, whose jurisdiction is invoked. Undisputedly, the respondent is residing within the territorial limits of MMTC, Bengaluru. Therefore, there is absolutely no illegality either in the institution of the petition or in the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the said offence.
8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of section 28 of the Act, unless the offence is said to have taken place within the territorial limits of the court, the court does not derive jurisdiction to try the offence, is not correct. Section 28 of the Act does not deal with the jurisdiction of the Court or the place of trial. It merely extends the applications of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 of the Act. This provision specifically saves what has been provided under the Act. The section open with the words ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Act’ thereby saving the special provisions made in the Act vis-a- vis the general procedure contemplated under the Code. Saving clause is used to preserve the special remedy or the right created under the Act. In view of the saving clause, the special jurisdiction conferred on the Magistrate to try the offences under the Act at the place where the victim is residing is saved. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the complaint in question is filed within the territorial limits of Metropolitan Magistrate in terms of Section 27 of the Act, where the complainant is permanently residing, in my view, there is no error or illegality whatsoever either in the institution of the complaint or in the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to try the offences alleged against the petitioners.
Consequently, the contention urged by the petitioners being devoid of merit are rejected.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss/mn/-