CRM No. M-27398 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-27398 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2011 Amit Sareen & others ...Petitioners Versus Banita Rani ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of complaint filed by the respondent under The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) and the consequent proceedings, on various grounds as outlined in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Magistrate at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant resides at Barnala but preferred the complaint at Chandigarh. According to him, there is nothing on record to show that complainant had any residence in Chandigarh to enable her to invoke the jurisdiction of said court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Brief factual background of the case is that complaint was CRM No. M-27398 of 2011 2 preferred by Banita Rani (respondent herein) stating that her marriage was solemnized with Amit Sareen (petitioner No.1 herein) on 28th June, 2010 at Dolphin Hotel, Jalandhar. She thereafter started residing at her matrimonial home at Jalandhar. After the marriage, complainant came to know that petitioner No.1 was already married and having a son aged about 13 years. For a month, relation between complainant and petitioner No.1 remained cordial, whereafter she was harassed for bringing less dowry. Pressure was built on her to bring at least Rs.7.00 lacs more from her parents as petitioner No.1 wanted to invest the same in his business of property. On her refusal, the complainant was further harassed and subjected to physical and mental cruelty. She, thus, lodged the instant complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate at Chandigarh. Heard. The contention of the petitioners that the court at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, is without any merit. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant is at present residing at Milk Colony, Dhanas, U.T. Chandigarh. In view of Section 27 of the Act, the complainant is entitled to prefer a complaint wherever she is temporarily residing. The said Section reads thus:- “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 CRM No. M-27398 of 2011 3 (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.” In view of the above provision, it is clear that wherever complainant has temporary residence, she can prefer a complaint in that local jurisdiction. The challenge to the complaint on the sole question of jurisdiction is, thus, unsustainable. The contention that there is no proof of temporary residence of the petitioner at the address given in the petition, is a question of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon in an inherent jurisdiction of this court. Besides, it appears that the petitioners earlier preferred a petition (Crl. Misc. No. M-25744 of 2011) for transfer of the case from the court at Chandigarh. The same was, however, dismissed as withdrawn with an observation that prayer of petitioners No.3 & 4, who are women, for exemption from personal appearance before the trial court, shall be sympathetically considered. Liberty was, however, granted to the petitioners to challenge the criminal proceedings in inherent jurisdiction of this court. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, I am satisfied that no case for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court is made out. The petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 08, 2011 'rajpal'