Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Domestic Violence Case Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction — Alleged Acts Occurred in USA, Not in India. The court held that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not have extra-territorial operation and courts in India cannot assume jurisdiction over incidents that took place entirely outside India.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 62
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mohammad Zuber Farooqi, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 152 of 2016 registered at Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai, under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 (Neelima Akhtar) married in Lucknow in 2008 and moved to the USA in 2009. They lived in North Carolina and later California. A child was born in 2013. In 2014, the respondent left the matrimonial home and went to her brother's place in Indiana. The petitioner filed for divorce and custody in California Superior Court. The respondent returned to India in 2015. The petitioner divorced her in India in 2015. In 2016, the respondent filed a custody petition in Family Court, Bandra, and later an FIR alleging domestic violence. The California Superior Court granted custody to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that all alleged acts of domestic violence occurred in the USA, and the courts in India lacked territorial jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the DV Act applies to Indian citizens abroad. The High Court held that the DV Act does not have extra-territorial application and the alleged incidents occurred in the USA, hence the FIR was an abuse of process. The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - FIR quashed where alleged domestic violence occurred in USA and parties were residing abroad - Held that courts in India lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain such complaint (Paras 1-10).

B) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Territorial Jurisdiction - Sections 12, 27 - Extra-territorial Application - Complaint under DV Act not maintainable when all alleged incidents took place in USA - Held that the Act does not have extra-territorial operation and courts in India cannot assume jurisdiction (Paras 5-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Magistrate's Court in India has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when the alleged acts of domestic violence occurred entirely outside India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 152 of 2016 registered at Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai, and all proceedings arising therefrom.

Law Points

  • Territorial jurisdiction
  • Domestic Violence Act
  • 2005
  • Extra-territorial application
  • Quashing of FIR
  • Abuse of process of law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 91

Criminal Writ Petition No. 3398 of 2017

2019-09-25

S. S. Shinde

Mr. Prashant Pandey, Adv. Vijayalaxmi Shetty, Mr. Darshit Jain, Mr. Irfan Unwala, Ms. Shaheen, Mrs. G.P. Mulekar

Mohammad Zuber Farooqi

State of Maharashtra & Neelima Akhtar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 152 of 2016 registered at Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai, and all proceedings arising therefrom.

Filing Reason

Petitioner contended that the FIR was filed maliciously and that the courts in India lacked territorial jurisdiction as all alleged acts of domestic violence occurred in the USA.

Issues

Whether the Magistrate's Court in India has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when the alleged acts of domestic violence occurred entirely outside India.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that all alleged incidents took place in the USA, and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not have extra-territorial application, hence the FIR is an abuse of process. Respondent No. 2 argued that the DV Act applies to Indian citizens abroad and the courts in India have jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not have extra-territorial operation. Courts in India cannot assume jurisdiction over alleged acts of domestic violence that occurred entirely outside India. The FIR was an abuse of process of law.

Judgment Excerpts

It is the case of the Petitioner that, on 26.12.2008, the Petitioner and Respondent married in Lucknow as per Muslim law. On 02.11.2016, the Superior Court of California passed the custody order of the child in the Petitioner's favour.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 3398 of 2017 in the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 152 of 2016. The court heard the matter and disposed it finally at the stage of admission.

Acts & Sections

  • Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 12, 27
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Domestic Violence Case Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction — Alleged Acts Occurred in USA, Not in India. The court held that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not have extra-territorial operation and courts i...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Property Tax Demand for Vacant Land Under Section 154 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — Held That Land Used for Storage of Raw Material and Finished Goods Is Not 'Vacant Land' and Is ...