The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of territorial jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the applicability of the Act to the alleged incidents of domestic violence and cruelty.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

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 and 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.

4. Petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court to advance his submission. It is pointed out that in Harbans Lal Malik vs. Payal Malik, 2011 (1) Crime 496 as also in the subsequent judgment of Vijay Verma vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, 2010 (118) DRJ 520 this Court had noted that where the parties had been staying in a foreign country and the alleged violence committed in a shared household was the incident of violence committed in a foreign country; the question of maintenance of a complaint under the DV Act would not arise; those proceedings had been quashed. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment reported as Jitendra Panchal vs. Intelligence Officer, NCB and Another, 2009 (2) UJ SC 0562 as also Emperor vs. Narayan Mudlagiri Mahale, AIR 1935 Bom 437 to support the same argument.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State assisted by the counsel for the complainant has relied upon Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2011) 11 SCC 301 as also Lee Kun Hee vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 (4) SCR 287 to substantiate the argument that such like offences are continuing offences and where such offence is committed in more areas than one, the offence is triable by a Court having jurisdiction over every such area. Thus the prayer made in the petitions be not granted.

6. Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.

7. Record discloses that the parties i.e. Divya Sharma and Rahul Bhargava had started interaction with one another through the medium of a matrimonial website namely www.Shadi.com. The families of the parties were introduced to one another in November, 2014. The husband and his family were residents of Australia. The interaction was done through a common friend namely one Vijay Kumar who was also a resident of Australia. E-mails were exchanged between the parties. The complainant and the respondent interacted with one another on 26.11.2014. The husband had come to India in December, 2014. Parties met several times between 30.12.201