CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 1 of 24

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 18.03.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 30.05.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 30.05.2026

+ CRL.M.C. 7205/2024, CRL.M.A. 27517/2024, CRL.M.A.

4183/2025, CRL.M.A. 13047/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26328/2025

RAGHURAJ PRATAP SINGH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dhruv Gupta and Mr.

Anubhav Garg, Advocates

versus

BHANVI KUMARI SINGH .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla,

Ms. Surbhi Khanna, Ms.

Neena Shukla and Mr.

Kushagra Sinha, Advocates

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

Index to the Judgment

FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................. 2

RIVAL CONTENTIONS ...................................................................... 4

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ..................................................................... 8

A. Scheme of PWDV Act ................................................................................ 8

B. Nature of Remedies under PWDV Act.................................................. 10

C. Offence under PWDV Act ...................................................................... 12

D. Legislature consciously vested jurisdiction in JMFC/MM .................. 13

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 2 of 24

E. Nature and Character of a Designated MP/MLA Court .................... 16

G. Practical Consequences of the Accepting the Interpretation Suggested

by the Petitioner............................................................................................... 19

H. Absence of Prejudice to the Petitioner .................................................. 21

CONCLUSION & DECISION ........................................................... 23

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. Whether proceedings arising out of an application filed by a

wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter ‗PWDV Act‘] against her husband,

who is a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, are to be instituted

and proceeded with before the designated criminal court constituted

for sitting and former MPs/MLAs, or before the jurisdictional

Magistrate under the PWDV Act? This is the issue that arises for

consideration in the present petition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned summoning

order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned ACJM-04, Rouse

Avenue Courts, Delhi, which is a designated Magisterial Court for

sitting and former MPs/MLAs [hereafter ‗ACJM‘], in Ct. Case no.

12/2024, as well as all consequential proceedings emanating

therefrom, primarily on the ground that the learned ACJM lacks

territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the PWDV Act to entertain

and proceed with the case in question, and that the proceedings under

PWDV Act can be instituted and continued only before the concerned

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 3 of 24

learned Magistrate of South District, Saket Courts, Delhi.

3. The brief facts, as set out in the petition, are that the marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on

17.02.1995 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Four

children were born out of the wedlock, all of whom are now major.

The petitioner is presently a sitting MLA from the Kunda

constituency in Uttar Pradesh, having been elected in the year 2022.

It is stated that in July 2017, following certain matrimonial disputes,

the respondent had left the matrimonial home in Uttar Pradesh and

has been residing in Delhi since then. On 15.11.2022, the petitioner

had filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereafter ‗HMA‘] before the learned

Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which is

presently pending at the stage of completion of pleadings. Thereafter,

in November 2023, the respondent had filed a petition under Section

9 of the HMA seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the same

Court, which is also pending adjudication. It is further stated that on

30.04.2024, the respondent had filed an application under Section 12

of the PWDV Act before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South

District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. However, on 18.05.2024, prior to

issuance of summons, the respondent withdrew the said application

citing – Notification no. 35 dated 23.02.2018 – relating to trial of

cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs by designated Courts,

and the application was accordingly returned.

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 4 of 24

4. Subsequently, on 31.05.2024, the respondent filed a fresh

application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act before the designated

MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. Vide the

impugned order dated 08.07.2024, summons were issued to the

petitioner by the learned ACJM, pursuant to which he entered

appearance on 05.08.2024.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that

the impugned summoning order suffers from non-application of mind

and is without jurisdiction, since the learned ACJM, Rouse Avenue

Court, lacks territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the PWDV

Act to entertain the proceedings. It is argued that even as per the

respondent‘s own case, the jurisdiction of the Rouse Avenue Court

was invoked solely on account of the petitioner being a sitting MLA,

whereas the competent court in terms of Section 27 of the PWDV Act

would be the concerned learned Magistrate at South District, Saket

Courts, Delhi, where the respondent is residing and where other

matrimonial proceedings between the parties are already pending. It

is further submitted that the respondent has wrongly relied upon

Notification no. 35 dated 23.02.2018 relating to designated Courts for

trial of cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs. The learned

counsel argues that the said notification was issued pursuant to the

directions passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar

Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.: W.P.(C) 699/2016, concerning

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 5 of 24

expeditious disposal of pending criminal cases against MPs/MLAs,

and the same cannot be extended to proceedings under Section 12 of

the PWDV Act, which are predominantly civil in nature. The learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner further argues that proceedings

under the PWDV Act have consistently been held to be civil in nature

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. Reliance is

placed on Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v.

Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari: (2016) 11 SCC 774, wherein the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed that the remedies under Sections 18

to 23 of the PWDV Act are civil remedies. Reliance is also placed

upon the decision of this Court in Anish Pramod Patel v. Kiran Jyot

Maini: 2023:DHC:8588 to contend that the PWDV Act is a social

welfare legislation intended to provide civil remedies to victims of

domestic violence. It is therefore argued that proceedings under

Section 12 of the PWDV Act could not have been entertained by a

designated criminal court constituted for trial of criminal cases

against MPs/MLAs. It is also submitted that an application under

Section 12 of the PWDV Act is not a ―complaint‖ within the meaning

of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C./Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, and that

the procedure contemplated under Sections 190 and 200 to 204 of

Cr.P.C. has no application to such proceedings. The learned counsel

submits that no offence is alleged in an application under Section 12

of the PWDV Act, and that an offence under the Act arises only upon

breach of an order passed under the Act, punishable under Section 31

thereof. It is also argued that the respondent had initially filed the

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 6 of 24

application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, but withdrew the same and

thereafter filed an identical application before the Rouse Avenue

Court only to invoke the jurisdiction of the designated MP/MLA

Court, and the same amounts to forum shopping and harassment.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that

the present petition is devoid of merit since the learned ACJM, Rouse

Avenue Court, is fully competent to entertain and adjudicate the

application filed under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. It is argued that

under Sections 2(i) and 27 of the PWDV Act, a Judicial Magistrate

First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under

the Cr.P.C./BNSS is the competent court to deal with proceedings

under the Act, subject to territorial jurisdiction. Since the learned

ACJM presiding over the designated MP/MLA Court continues to

function as a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising criminal jurisdiction

under the Cr.P.C./BNSS, the said Court cannot be said to lack

jurisdiction merely because it has been assigned MP/MLA matters by

way of an administrative order. The learned counsel further submits

that the Notification dated 23.02.2018 issued by this Court pursuant

to the directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar

Upadhyay (supra) was intended to ensure expeditious adjudication of

cases involving sitting and former MPs/MLAs. It is argued that the

designated MP/MLA Court is not a separate or special court created

under any independent statute, but only a regular ACMM/ACJM

Court entrusted with cases concerning elected representatives.

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 7 of 24

Therefore, the learned ACJM does not cease to be a Magistrate

competent to exercise jurisdiction under the PWDV Act. It is also

contended that though proceedings under the PWDV Act contain

certain civil remedies, they are adjudicated by a Magistrate following

criminal procedure. Reliance is placed upon Section 28 of the PWDV

Act, which provides that proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20,

21, 22 and 23 of the Act shall be governed by the provisions of the

Cr.P.C. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court in Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari (supra) to submit

that proceedings under the PWDV Act, though predominantly civil in

nature, are nevertheless governed by criminal procedural law before

the Magistrate. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

further argues that the petitioner‘s contention that the proceedings

ought to continue before an ordinary civil forum is misconceived,

since the Magistrate under the PWDV Act is also empowered to deal

with breaches of protection orders punishable under Section 31 of the

Act. It is submitted that if the interpretation suggested by the

petitioner is accepted, the very object behind constitution of

designated MP/MLA Courts for expeditious disposal of cases

involving elected representatives would stand frustrated, and elected

representatives would be able to avoid such Courts merely by raising

objections regarding the nature of proceedings. It is lastly submitted

that allegations of forum shopping are wholly unfounded. According

to the respondent, the earlier application filed before the Saket Courts

was withdrawn only in view of the Notification dated 23.02.2018 and

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 8 of 24

the understanding that matters concerning sitting MPs/MLAs were

required to be placed before the designated MP/MLA Court.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the

petitioner as well as the respondent, and has considered the material

placed on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

8. In order to adjudicate the controversy involved in the present

petition, it would be necessary for this Court to first examine the

statutory scheme of the PWDV Act, particularly the nature of

proceedings contemplated under the Act, the forum prescribed by the

legislature for adjudication of such proceedings, and the scope and

jurisdiction of the designated Court for sitting and former

MPs/MLAs.

A. Scheme of PWDV Act

9. Section 12 of the PWDV Act enables an aggrieved person, a

Protection Officer, or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved

person, to present an application before the Magistrate seeking one or

more reliefs under the Act. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:

―12. Application to Magistrate.

(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other

person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an

application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under

this Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the

Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident

report received by him from the Protection Officer or the

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 9 of 24

service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a

relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or

damages without prejudice to the right of such person to

institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries

caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the

respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation

or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the

aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in

pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act

shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree

and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for

the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount,

if any, left after such set off.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such

form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as

nearly as possible thereto.

(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which

shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of

receipt of the application by the court.

(5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every

application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty

days from the date of its first hearing.‖

10. The term ―Magistrate‖, as appearing in Section 12, has been

defined under Section 2(i) of the PWDV Act as under:

―2(i) ―Magistrate‖ means the Judicial Magistrate of the first

class, or as the case may be, the Metropolitan Magistrate,

exercising jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code,

1973 (2 of 1974) in the area where the aggrieved person resides

temporarily or otherwise or the respondent resides or the

domestic violence is alleged to have taken place‖

11. A perusal of the aforesaid provision reflects that the legislature

has vested jurisdiction under the PWDV Act – in a Judicial

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 10 of 24

Magistrate of the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising

jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS) in the area concerned.

12. Chapter IV of the PWDV Act further enumerates the nature of

reliefs which may be granted to an aggrieved person who has been

subjected to domestic violence. These include:

(i) protection orders under Section 18;

(ii) residence orders under Section 19;

(iii) monetary reliefs under Section 20;

(iv) custody orders under Section 21; and

(v) compensation orders under Section 22.

B. Nature of Remedies under PWDV Act

13. One of the principal contentions raised on behalf of the

petitioner is that since the reliefs contemplated under Sections 18 to

22 of the PWDV Act are civil in nature, proceedings under Section

12 of the Act ought not to continue before the designated MP/MLA

Court constituted for criminal cases involving elected representatives.

It therefore becomes necessary to examine the nature of proceedings

under the PWDV Act.

14. The observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in

Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari (supra), in this regard, are set out

below:

―11. ……In respect of the petition filed under Sections 18 and

20 of the DV Act, the proceedings are to be governed by the

Code, as provided under Section 28 of the DV Act. At the same

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 11 of 24

time, it cannot be disputed that these proceedings are

predominantly of civil nature.

12. In fact, the very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to

provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of civil rights

of the complainant i.e. aggrieved person. Intention was to

protect women against violence of any kind, especially that

occurring within the family as the civil law does not address

this phenomenon in its entirety. It is treated as an offence under

Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The purpose of

enacting the law was to provide a remedy in the civil law for

the protection of women from being victims of domestic

violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in

the society…‖

15. In Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal: 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1158, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held as under:

―28.1 Thus, there is no doubt that, notwithstanding the penal

provisions in the form of Sections 31 and 33 of Chapter V, the

proceedings before the Magistrate under the DV Act, 2005, are

predominantly of a civil nature.‖

16. Therefore, there can be no dispute with the proposition that the

remedies available to an aggrieved woman under the PWDV Act,

including protection orders, residence orders, monetary reliefs,

custody orders and compensation orders, are predominantly civil in

nature. Such reliefs, by themselves, do not result in imposition of any

criminal punishment upon the respondent.

17. However, the nature of reliefs provided under the PWDV Act

is not the sole aspect requiring consideration. The statute also

contemplates certain penal consequences and prescribes a specific

forum and procedure for adjudication of proceedings under the Act,

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 12 of 24

which also merits examination in this judgment.

C. Offence under PWDV Act

18. There is yet another important aspect of the statutory scheme

of the PWDV Act which cannot be overlooked. Though the reliefs

contemplated under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are predominantly

civil in nature, breach or non-compliance of certain orders passed

thereunder, particularly a protection order or interim protection order,

itself constitutes an offence under Section 31 of the PWDV Act.

Sections 31 and 32 of the PWDV Act read as under:

―31. Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent.

(1) A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection

order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and

shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for

a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may

extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.

(2) The offence under sub-section (1) shall as far as practicable

be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach

of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused.

(3) While framing charges under sub-section (1), the

Magistrate may also frame charges under section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other provision of that

Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), as the

case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence

under those provisions.

32. Cognizance and proof.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offence under sub-

section (1) of section 31 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.

(2) Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court

may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of section

31 has been committed by the accused.‖

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 13 of 24

19. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that breach

of a protection order or interim protection order is a statutory offence

punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or fine,

or both. Further, Section 32 expressly provides that such offence

shall be cognizable and non-bailable. Further, under Section 31(3),

while framing charge for the offence under Section 31(1), the

Magistrate is also empowered to frame charges under Section 498A

IPC or any other penal provision of the IPC or the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961, if the facts so disclose.

20. Therefore, while proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV

Act may predominantly involve civil remedies, the statute itself

contemplates criminal consequences in cases of breach of orders

passed thereunder. The scheme of the Act thus reflects a combination

of civil remedies, and criminal enforcement mechanisms.

D. Legislature consciously vested jurisdiction in JMFC/MM

21. Thus, even though the substantive reliefs contemplated under

the PWDV Act may largely be civil in nature, the legislature has

consciously vested jurisdiction for adjudication of such proceedings

in a Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate.

22. Sections 27 and 28 of the PWDV Act, which deal with

jurisdiction and procedure respectively, and are reproduced

hereunder:

―27. Jurisdiction.

(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 14 of 24

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 orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable

throughout India.‖

28. Procedure.

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings

under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under

Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from

laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application

under Section 12 or under sub-section (2) of Section 23.‖

23. As per Section 28 of the PWDV Act, all proceedings under

Sections 12, Sections 18 to 23 and Section 31 are to be governed by

the Cr.P.C. Moreover, Section 27 of the PWDV Act specifically

provides that the Court of Magistrate shall be the competent court not

only to grant protection orders and other reliefs under the Act, but

also to try offences under the Act. Therefore, the same Magistrate has

been empowered both to grant civil reliefs under the Act and to deal

with offences arising therefrom.

24. Section 31(2) of PWDV Act further strengthens the aforesaid

legislative intent by providing that, as far as practicable, an offence

under Section 31(1) shall be tried by the Magistrate who had passed

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 15 of 24

the order alleged to have been breached. Thus, the statutory

framework itself envisages continuity of proceedings before the same

Court of Magistrate.

25. In this regard, the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court

in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi (supra) are also relevant and are

reproduced below:

―23.1. So, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class

or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, has

jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 12 of the

DV Act, 2005 as can be seen from the provisions of Sections

12 and 27 read with clause (i) of Section 2 of the DV Act,

2005.

***

26. Under the CrPC, Chapter II deals with the constitution of

Criminal Courts and Offices. The Courts of Session, Judicial

Magistrates of the First Class and in any metropolitan area,

Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates of the Second

Class and Executive Magistrates are Criminal Courts as

provided in Section 6 of the CrPC. Therefore, the Courts of

Metropolitan Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates of First

Class, which are empowered to entertain applications under

Section 12 and to grant reliefs under the DV Act, 2005, are

Criminal Courts. Similarly, under the BNSS, Section 6 thereof

provides that Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the

First Class, Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class and

Executive Magistrates are Criminal Courts. Under the BNSS,

there is no category of Metropolitan Magistrates. Therefore, the

jurisdiction to entertain a complaint vests in a Criminal Court

under the CrPC.‖

26. The aforesaid observations clearly reiterate that proceedings

under the PWDV Act are to be entertained by Criminal Courts i.e.

Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates or Judicial Magistrates First

Class exercising jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C./BNSS. Therefore, the

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 16 of 24

mere fact that the remedies under the Act are predominantly civil in

nature does not imply that the proceedings are to be adjudicated by a

civil court or Family Court.

27. In fact, this Court finds it pertinent to note that both parties

before this Court are ad idem on the proposition that proceedings

under Section 12 of the PWDV Act are required to be instituted

before a Court of Magistrate in terms of Sections 2(i) and 27 of the

PWDV Act. The controversy, therefore, is not whether such

proceedings should continue before a civil court or a criminal court,

but only as to which Court of Magistrate would be the competent

forum in the facts of the present case.

E. Nature and Character of a Designated MP/MLA Court

28. At this stage, it also becomes necessary to examine the nature

and character of the designated MP/MLA Courts.

29. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that certain Courts in

Delhi were designated for adjudicating matters pertaining to

MP/MLA, in Delhi, pursuant to a series of directions issued by the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra)

concerning expeditious disposal of cases involving sitting and former

Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies.

Pursuant thereto, from time to time, notifications and administrative

orders were issued by this Court assigning such matters to designated

courts both at the level of Sessions Courts and Magistrate Courts.

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 17 of 24

30. The principal argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that

since certain Courts were designated as MP/MLA Courts pursuant to

the directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, for dealing with

criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs, proceedings

under Section 12 of the PWDV Act ought not to continue before such

Court. However, this Court is unable to accept the said contention,

for the reason that a Court designated for adjudicating matters

pertaining to sitting and former MPs/MLAs is not a separate statutory

court created under any special law. Rather, the designated MP/MLA

Court continues to be a regular Court of Sessions or ACJM

exercising jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS). The only

distinction is that, pursuant to the directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court and administrative orders of this Court, criminal cases

involving sitting and former MPs/MLAs have been assigned to such

Courts for their expeditious adjudication and disposal. Thus, this

designation relates to administrative allocation of cases, and not to

creation of a separate class of court outside the ordinary criminal

court structure.

31. Therefore, merely because an ACJM has been assigned matters

concerning MPs/MLAs, the said Court cannot cease to be a Court of

‗Magistrate‘ within the meaning of Sections 2(i) and 27 of the

PWDV Act.

32. Moreover, initially, specific courts were designated vide

administrative orders issued by this Court for dealing with cases

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 18 of 24

concerning MPs/MLAs and, over a period of time, the number and

nature of such designated courts were modified through subsequent

notifications issued by this Court. As of now, in terms of Notification

no. 5384/DHC/Gaz/G-2/2022 dated 28.09.2022, six courts at Rouse

Avenue Courts Complex, Delhi have been assigned matters relating

to sitting and former MPs/MLAs, comprising three Courts of learned

Special Judges (PC Act) and three Courts of learned ACJMs.

33. Thus, the system presently operating in Delhi reflects an

administrative arrangement whereby cases involving MPs and

MLAs, whether sitting or former, are assigned to identified courts for

the purpose of centralized and expeditious adjudication. However,

such assignment does not alter the fundamental nature or character of

the courts concerned. The learned ACJMs functioning as designated

MP/MLA Courts continue to exercise jurisdiction as Courts of

Magistrate under the Cr.P.C./BNSS.

34. Another aspect which merits consideration is that, so far as

territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the PWDV Act is

concerned, there appears to be no dispute that the respondent-wife

has been residing in Delhi since the year 2017 and that the

proceedings under the PWDV Act have also been instituted on the

basis that part of the cause of action has arisen within Delhi.

Therefore, the requirement of territorial jurisdiction under Section 27

of the PWDV Act, insofar as the State of Delhi is concerned, stands

satisfied. Ordinarily, in terms of territorial allocation within the Delhi

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 19 of 24

judiciary, such proceedings would lie before the concerned Court of

Magistrate exercising jurisdiction over the South District, Saket

Courts, Delhi, as accepted by both the parties.

35. However, as already discussed hereinabove, pursuant to the

directions issued by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar

Upadhyay (supra) and the notifications issued by this Court from

time to time, all criminal cases involving sitting and former

MPs/MLAs, whether triable by a Magistrate or a Sessions Court,

have been assigned to designated courts at Rouse Avenue Courts

Complex, Delhi, regardless of the aspect of territorial jurisdiction.

36. Thus, once territorial jurisdiction within Delhi is otherwise

made out, the question essentially concerns allocation of the matter

within the judicial system in Delhi. The assignment of such matters

to the designated MP/MLA Courts at Rouse Avenue is an

administrative arrangement applicable to cases involving sitting and

former MPs/MLAs, in terms of the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme

Court. Therefore, merely because the present proceedings have been

instituted before the designated MP/MLA Court of ACJM at Rouse

Avenue, instead of the concerned Magistrate at Saket Courts, does

not render the proceedings without jurisdiction.

G. Practical Consequences of Accepting the Interpretation

Suggested by the Petitioner

37. This Court is also of the opinion that the interpretation sought

to be advanced by the petitioner can lead to multiplicity of

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 20 of 24

proceedings, which is avoidable if his interpretation is not accepted.

As already discussed hereinabove, though proceedings under Section

12 of the PWDV Act involve grant of reliefs which are primarily of

civil nature, breach of a protection order or interim protection order

constitutes an offence under Section 31 of the Act, which is

cognizable and non-bailable in terms of Section 32. Further, Section

31(2) itself contemplates that such offence, as far as practicable, shall

be tried by the same Magistrate who had passed the order alleged to

have been breached.

38. Therefore, if the submission of the petitioner is accepted and

proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against a sitting

MLA are permitted to continue before an ordinary jurisdictional

Magistrate, a situation may subsequently arise where, upon an

alleged breach of protection order attracting Sections 31 and 32 of the

Act, the matter may then have to be transferred to the designated

MP/MLA Court in view of the accused being a sitting MLA and the

proceedings having acquired the character of prosecution for a

cognizable offence.

39. In this Court‘s view, such an interpretation would result in the

possibility of inconsistent proceedings before different courts arising

out of the same dispute between the parties, i.e. the civil reliefs

available under the PWDV Act may be prayed to be adjudicated by a

different Court and the penal consequences by a special designated

Court to try offences against sitting and former MPs/MLAs. The

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 21 of 24

legislative intent reflected in Section 31(2) – that the same Magistrate

should, as far as practicable, continue with the matter – would also

stand defeated.

40. In the opinion of this Court, a construction and interpretation

of law, which avoids such procedural complications and ensures

continuity of proceedings, deserves to be preferred and accepted by a

Constitutional Court.

H. Absence of Prejudice to the Petitioner

41. Be that as it may, this Court also finds merit in the submission

of the respondent that no prejudice has been demonstrated by the

petitioner merely because the case under PWDV Act has been

instituted before the designated MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue

Courts instead of the concerned Magistrate at Saket Courts. Both

Courts are Courts of competent Magistrates situated within Delhi and

exercising jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS).

42. The petitioner has neither been able to point out any denial of

fair hearing nor any procedural illegality arising solely on account of

the proceedings being entertained by the designated MP/MLA Court.

Further, it is not the petitioner‘s case that proceedings at Rouse

Avenue Courts would cause any exceptional inconvenience which

would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the objection raised by the

petitioner appears to be more technical in nature, particularly when

the jurisdiction of the Court of Magistrate under the PWDV Act is

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 22 of 24

otherwise not in dispute.

43. This Court must also keep in mind the object behind the

constitution of designated Courts for cases involving sitting and

former MPs/MLAs, which was ensuring expeditious disposal of cases

involving elected representatives. The underlying purpose was that

cases concerning MPs and MLAs should not remain pending

indefinitely and should be dealt with in a time-bound manner,

keeping in view larger considerations of public confidence in the

administration of justice and the functioning of democratic

institutions. Therefore, once a system has been created for centralized

and expeditious adjudication of cases involving elected

representatives, the same cannot be rendered ineffective merely on

the ground that the proceedings under the PWDV Act involve civil

reliefs, especially when such proceedings are otherwise conducted by

a Court exercising criminal jurisdiction.

44. This Court is also of the opinion that continuation of

proceedings before the designated MP/MLA Court would not, in any

manner, defeat the object or scheme of the PWDV Act. The

respondent-wife continues to have rights to seek all remedies

available under the PWDV Act including protection orders, residence

orders, monetary reliefs, custody orders and compensation orders.

Likewise, the petitioner continues to enjoy all procedural safeguards

available under the Act, to challenge any order passed against him.

Thus, the nature of reliefs available under the PWDV Act, the

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 23 of 24

procedure governing the proceedings, and the appellate or revisional

remedies available to the parties remain unchanged merely because

the matter is being dealt with by the designated MP/MLA Court at

Rouse Avenue Courts.

45. Therefore, this Court finds no prejudice likely to be caused to

either party on account of the proceedings continuing before the

learned ACJM, Rouse Avenue Courts.

CONCLUSION & DECISION

46. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the designated MP/MLA Court at Rouse

Avenue Courts, Delhi, presided over by the learned ACJM, continues

to remain a Court of Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the

Cr.P.C. (now BNSS), and thus, also a competent Court within the

meaning of Sections 2(i) and 27 of the PWDV Act. Merely because

the proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act involve

predominantly civil reliefs does not imply that such proceedings

cease to be triable by a Court of Magistrate, especially when the

statutory framework of the PWDV Act itself contemplates

application of Cr.P.C., as well as penal consequences under Sections

31 and 32 of the Act. Once territorial jurisdiction within Delhi is

otherwise satisfied, institution of the case before the designated

MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue Courts is essentially an

administrative arrangement pursuant to the directions issued by the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court and notifications issued by this Court from

CRL.M.C. 7205/2024 Page 24 of 24

time to time.

47. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned

summoning order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned ACJM-04,

Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi, or in the consequential proceedings

arising therefrom.

48. The present petition is therefore dismissed alongwith pending

applications, if any.

49. It is clarified that nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to

an opinion on the merits of the allegations involved in the

proceedings under the PWDV Act.

50. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

MAY 30, 2026/zp

T.D.