RAHUL BHARGAVA Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Rahul Bhargava seeks quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 (Divya Sharma) CC No. 46/1/2016 under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DV Act'). He also seeks a quashing of the FIR (FIR No.469/2016) registered under Sections 498-A/406 read with Section 34 of the IPC at Police Station Hauz Khas against himself as also his other family members on the complaint of his wife (Divya Sharma).

(2.) The argument of the petitioner is bordered on his submission that the Court below did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case under the DV Act as even as per the complainant all acts/incidents of alleged domestic violence were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi; not being within the precincts of National Capital Territory of Delhi, the cognizance taken on that complaint is bad; it is liable to be set aside. The same argument has been addressed on the FIR which has also raised the plea of territorial jurisdiction. Submission being that all acts of alleged cruelty were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the NCT of Delhi. Even on merits, the contents of the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence. The proceedings both in the complaint case as also the FIR have to be quashed.

(3.) These arguments have been rebutted. Learned counsel for the State is assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is pointed out that the averments in the complaint disclose the incidents of domestic violence which had erupted in Delhi; so also the cruelties (as defined under Section 498-A of the IPC) have been disclosed. No ground is made out to interfere with the orders passed by the Court below. Submissions made by the petitioners can only be decided at the stage of trial. The question of quashing does not arise.