Allahabad High Court
Manish Shukla And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 December, 2011
Bench: Shri Kant Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38177 of 2011
Petitioner :- Manish Shukla And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shashi Kant Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Basti in criminal appeal no. 53/2011, Manish Shukla & others vs. Smt. Pratima and others, and also the order dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in case no. 1785/2011, Smt. Pratima Shukla vs. Manish Shukla & others,
Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla appearing for the petitioners submitted that according to the allegations made in the complaint the domestic violence against the respondent no.2 took place in district Gonda and the respondent no.2 moved application to the Protection Officer, Gonda regarding the domestic violence on which basis, the Protection Officer submitted domestic violence report to the court of C.J.M. Basti. It was next submitted that when the domestic violence report was of the district Gonda, filing of the complaint in district Basti was not proper, therefore, Basti court had no jurisdiction to pass any order.
It appears that the respondent no. 2 has filed a petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioners in the court of CJM Basti and the petitioners, on appearance before the court concerned, raised the question of territorial jurisdiction and contended that the CJM Basti had no jurisdiction. The CJM rejected the contentions of the petitioners and held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Sessions Judge was also of the same view.
In my opinion, the question of jurisdiction of the Magistrate does not depend upon the domestic violence report of the Protection Officer. The said question is to be decided according to the provisions of section 27 of the Act, according to which, the court of Magistrate, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed, has jurisdiction in the matter. The court where the respondent resides, carries on business or is employed has also jurisdiction. The court within whose local jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or partly arises, has also jurisdiction. It is open to the aggrieved person to choose any of the said courts for filing the complaint and she can not be compelled to file the complaint according to the choice of the respondents. In the present matter, the respondent no.2, who lives in district Basti, chose to file complaint in the court of CJM Basti, therefore, her complaint can not be said to be not maintainable in the said court only on the ground that the domestic violence report was obtained from the Protection Officer of the district Gonda. The question of jurisdiction was not to be decided on the basis of the office of Protection Officer or his report, rather it was to be decided only in the terms of the provisions of section 27 of the Act. The learned CJM as well as the Sessions Judge have considered the question of jurisdiction according to the parameters provided in section 27 of the Act after looking into the allegations made in the complaint and have passed proper orders, therefore, the matter requires no interference.
Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla lastly submitted that the domestic violence report has been transferred on the request of the respondent no.2 from the Protection Officer, Gonda to the court of CJM Basti. This could not be done and the Protection Officer has no jurisdiction to act on the request of the respondent no.2. In my opinion, when the judicial matter under section 12 of the Act was pending in the court of CJM, who was competent to decide the question of domestic violence, the submission of the report even on the request of the respondent no.2 to the court of CJM, Basti can not be said to be contrary to law.
The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.12.2011
RKSh
