Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2668 of 2018 Revisionist :- Vivek Mathur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Piyush Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the revisionist in Court today, which is taken on record.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.6.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Agra, in Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2017 (Vivek Mathur vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby aforesaid Criminal Appeal arising out of the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Agra, in Case No. 18 of 2015 (Pooja Saxena vs. Vivek Mathura and others), under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist in challenge to the aforesaid summoning order has primarily submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005). According to the learned counsel for the revisionist, the entire occurrence has taken place at Bangalore. Secondly, the revisionist resides at Jaipur. Lastly it is urged that the District Protection Officer, Agra had no jurisdiction to submit D.P.O. report in terms of Rule 5 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Rules, 2006.
Before proceeding to consider the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it will be appropriate to take notice of section 27 of the Act of 2005, which deals with the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case under Act, 2005. The same is reproduced herein under:-
" 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."
From a perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is explicitly clear that the case of the opposite party No. 2 falls under section 27 (1) (a) of the Act of 2005 and the Court at Agra has jurisdiction to try the aforesaid case and the District Protection Officer at Agra has also jurisdiction to submit report.
Submission raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist is wholly misconceived. It is by now well settled that the Rules, which are framed, are in addition to provisions of the Act. They supplement the provisions of the Act, but do not supplant the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Rules 2006 have to be read in harmony with section 27 of the Act, 2005. Once the Act itself is clear that the Court has jurisdiction to proceed if any of the contingencies, as contained in sub clause a, b and c of Section 27 exist, the arguments urged on behalf of the revisionist that the D.P.O. had no jurisdiction to submit the report is wholly misconceived.
For all the reasons given herein above, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the present criminal revision. The criminal revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 HSM