PRATEEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the proceedings in the petition filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, HP. It has been asserted that petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2/aggrieved person. He is residing in Mumbai. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the sisters of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Sec. 12 of the DV Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, at Dharamshala, levelling false allegations to harass the petitioners. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, allowed the objection raised by the petitioners regarding the lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the sisters of petitioner No.1 and were unnecessarily dragged into the present proceedings. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnised on 7/12/2022 at HPTDC Hotel Jawalaji as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties resided at Kolkata for a brief time and thereafter resided in Mumbai. The petitioners organised a welcome reception for respondent No.2 on 11/12/2022, but respondent No.2 refused to interact with the uests or to take family photographs. Petitioner No.1 arranged a honeymoon trip to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, but respondent No.2 refused to communicate with petitioner No.1 or consummate the marriage. The petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 went to Mumbai on 31/1/2023. She left the matrimonial home on 7/2/2023. Efforts were made to bring her back, but these were unsuccessful. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under the DV Act. Respondent No.2 never shared any household, conferring the jurisdiction upon the Courts at Dehra. The allegations made in the complaint are false, and they do not show any incident of physical or mental violence after 2017. The parties resided at Kolkata and Mumbai, and no act had taken place in Dehra. False allegations were made against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate erred in issuing the notice. Hence, the petition.

(2.) Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the pe i ion filed by respondent No.2 is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. The allegations are false and were made to harass the petitioners. The petitioners never resided in Kolkata; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kan ra, HP, be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of Vijay Verma v. State NCT of Delhi and another, AIR 2011 NOC 177 and Sanjay D. Jain and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2025 INSC 1168 in support of his submission.

(3.) I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.