1. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Dharamshala has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in terms of Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provides:
“27. Jurisdiction-
(1) The Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which-
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent Court to grant a protection order and other oders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.
(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.”
2. The Court is not competent to try the case as none of the parties reside there. In this view of the matter, the petitioner submits that the entire trial will be a matter of futility. The proceedings are at the initial stage and these should and ought to be quahsed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others, (1999) 8 SCC 686 to urge that there is a bar to entertain the complaint and in this event, the proceedings should be quahsed. In particular learned counsel has laid emphasis on para 13 of the judgment.
3. The question as to whether the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the case, is a question of fact to be determined by that Court. In these circumstances, a direction is issued that before proceeding with the case further, learned trial Court shall ascertain as to whether the parties are residing within its jurisdiction. This shall be decided as a preliminary point.
4. In Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2007) 1 SCC 49 the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has held:
“16. But where the question of jurisdiction is raised and the trial Court is required to adjudicate that issue, it cannot be said that reasons are not to be recorded. In such a case reasons relate to question of jurisdiction and not necessarily to the issue relating to framing of charge. In such a case reasons dealing with a plea relating to jurisdiction have to be recorded.” (at p. 59)
5. Petition stands disposed of.