JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioners seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 30.07.2014 whereby the petitioners have been summoned and to quash the FIR No. 68/2013, registered at Police Station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Mahila Court, South-

West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.

2. In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 got married with respondent No.2 on 04.12.2005 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Resort Country Club, Manesar, Haryana. Reception was held in Gurgaon on 06.12.2005. On 07.12.2005, the newly wedded couple left for Watford Hertfordshire, United Kingdom and started residing as husband and wife. Out of the wedlock of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2, a son – Ronit Kuthiala was born on 13.01.2007 in Watford, U.K. On 24.03.2007, respondent No.2 left her matrimonial house at Watford, UK with all her personal belongings and stayed in a rented accommodation separately. Since she was not living with her husband, therefore, she was not granted dependent visa by the UK immigration authorities and ultimately she had to leave UK in February 2008. The petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition in Watford County Court, UK on 16.07.2009. During pendency of the divorce petition, correspondences were exchanged between the solicitors of petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2, wherein the solicitor for respondent No. 2 accepted that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and respondent No. 2 allows the divorce petition to proceed on an undefended basis and vide letter dated 28.10.2009, respondent No. 2 reminded the petitioner to file the divorce as soon as possible in order to minimize costs as the respondent No. 2 was not inclined to file any acknowledgement and cross-petition. Vide letter dated 29.01.2010, the respondent No. 2 while denying the allegations, accepted the fact that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 has broken down. Consequently, on 27.07.2010, the Watford Country Court passed a decree nisi on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down on account of respondent No. 2’s unreasonable behavior. Thereafter, upon applying for decree absolute, by the petitioner No.1 on 11.02.2011, the Watford Country Court passed decree absolute on

06.08.2012.

3. As per case of the petitioner, after the decree absolute was granted, respondent No. 2 became vindictive and started sending obscene emails to the petitioner No.1’s relatives and employers. A complaint in this regard was filed by the father of the petitioner No.1 against respondent No. 2 on 14.07.2012 and accordingly an FIR No.311/2012 under Section 66C and 67A of I.T. Act 2000 was registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. In counterblast to the aforesaid complaint of father of the petitioner No.1, respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint with the CAW Cell, Nanakpura against the petitioner No.1 and his parents on 01.02.2013. Notices in the said complaint were issued and the petitioners cooperated in the investigation, all the istridhan belonging to respondent No. 2 was returned but still the efforts to settle the matter failed and FIR No. 68/2013 under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge sheet in the case was filed on 25.07.2014 and the Court had passed the summoning order on 30.07.2014.

4. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Delhi court to entertain the complaint filed byrespondent No. 2, delayin filing the FIR against the petitioners and application of mind in passing the summoning order by the Trial Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended on behalf of the petitioners that the family members of petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 were residing in India, therefore, bot