SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 431

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJEEV NARULA, J
PUNEET ARORA – Appellant
Versus
KANIKA KHERA & ORS. – Respondent


Advocates:
ABHIJIT MISHRA

Judgement Key Points

The case involves a challenge to a criminal complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which alleges incidents that took place outside India, specifically in Canada. The petitioner argues that the court in Delhi does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear cases related to incidents outside the country because the Act does not provide for such jurisdiction. The court agrees with this argument and stays the proceedings until the next hearing.

This issue is addressed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which governs the legal rights and protections for women facing domestic violence.


ORDER :

CRL.M.A. 428/2025 (seeking exemption)

1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 47/2025 & CRL.M.A. 427/2025 (seeking stay)

4. Counsel for Petitioner states all the allegations made in the impugned criminal complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, [“DV Act”], pertain to incidents which allegedly occurred in Canada, i.e., beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts in Delhi. He further submits that in fact, prior to the filing of the impugned compliant, on 13th December, 2022, Respondent No. 1 had registered FIR no. 731/2022 at P.S. Jagat Puri, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”] raising similar allegations as those alleged in the impugned compliant. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that in the proceedings emanating from the said FIR, the Petitioner had filed an application seeking discharge, inter- alia on the ground of violation of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top