IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 319/07
Vijay Singh & Others
State of Rajasthan & Another
Date of order : 22/04/2009
Mr. Sandeep Mehta for the petitioners. Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
Mr. Pradeep Shah for the respondent.
By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the order dated 13.2.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheem, district Rajsamand has been challenged. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that firstly as per Section 2 (q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act of 2005 hereinafter), the female petitioners cannot be made respondent in a proceeding initiated by respondent No.2 Smt. Priyanka Kanwar under the Act of 2005. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court at Bheem has no jurisdiction to inquire into and try the case as the respondent is permanent resident of Village Ghodiwara Khurd, District Jhunjhunu and therefore, the petition filed by the respondent No.2 under the Act of 2005 at Bheem is not maintainable. The Expression “respondent” has been defined in Section 2 (q) of the Act of 2005 which provides that the respondent means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that so far as the petitioner No.3 Smt. Supyar Kanwar and No.5 Ratan Kanwar are concerned, they being female members, therefore, keeping in view the definition of respondent in Section 2 (q) of the Act of 2005, the proceeding against them may be quashed, but so far as the petitioners No.1,2 and 4 are concerned, they are male adult persons and the proceeding against them under the Act is maintainable. So far as jurisdiction is concerned, Section 27 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction which reads as under:-
“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 under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the point of jurisdiction, objection has been raised by the petitioners before the trial court and therefore, at this stage the petitioners may be permitted to argue the point of jurisdiction in the objection raised by them in the trial court. In this view of the matter, the proceeding against the petitioner No.3 Smt. Supyar Kanwar W/o Supyar Singh and petitioner No.5 Ratan Kanwar W/o Dilip Singh instituted by respondent No.2 Smt. Priyanka Kanwar under the provisions of the Act of 2005 is quashed. However, the proceeding will continue against petitioners No.1,2 and 4 and the petitioners are at liberty to contest the point of jurisdiction in the objection filed by the petitioners before the trial court. With this modification, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of.