DHARMINDER KUMAR Vs. AJAY SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , who are respondents in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have preferred this petition with the prayer to quash the proceedings so initiated against them by her on the ground that the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Nurpur has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition as the respondent, allegedly is residing at village Hatwas, within the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kangra. The petition is at its initial stage. The petitioners, therefore, are at liberty to raise the question of jurisdiction of the Court at Nurpur to entertain and try the petition in the trial Court. In case any such question is raised, it is expected of the trial Court to consider and decide the same by treating such question as preliminary. Support in this behalf can also be drawn from the judgment dated 3rd June, 2011 rendered by a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No. 87 of 2011 titled Dev Raj Versus State of H.P. & another, which reads as follows: -

(2.) THE Court is not competent to try the case as none of the parties reside there. In this view of the matter, the petitioner submits that the entire trial will be a matter of futility. The proceedings are at the initial stage and these should and ought to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, : (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others, : (1999) 8 SCC 686 to urge that there is a bar to entertain the complaint and in this event, the proceedings should be quashed. In particular learned counsel has laid emphasis on para 13 of the judgment.