Dismissed¶151

Neeraj Kumar Chandha v. Deepika Nandwani

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2025WP/21988/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Territorial jurisdiction; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 r/w Section 482 CrPC; quashing of notice No.Coma/181/2021 issued by JMFC Panipat in Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act proceedings; maintainability; liberty to approach High Court of Punjab and Haryana; domestic violence; Karnataka High Court; J.M. Khazi; WP No. 21988 of 2021; decided 11.09.2025; related proceedings WP No.17007/2021, Cr.No.33/2021 Mahila Thana Panipat, Cr.No.50/2021 Bagalagunte PS; nineteen precedents listed by counsel but not engaged with by the court.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was rejected as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for redressal. ¶151

Neeraj Kumar Chandha Vs Deepika Nandwani — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was rejected as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for redressal.

¶151

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court of Karnataka has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition seeking quashing of the Section 12 DV Act application, proceedings and notice No.Coma/181/2021 issued by JMFC, Panipat. +1 more

¶106

Court's answer

This Court is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition; consequently the petition is liable to be rejected.

¶144

Ratio / Principle

Basis of the jurisdiction finding: the respondent gave her residential address as Panipat, left the matrimonial home and is stated to be residing at Panipat, Haryana, and on that basis maintained her petition under Section 12 of the DV Act before the CJM, Panipat.

¶136

Key takeaways

The writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected as not maintainable.ratio¶151
Petitioners are at liberty to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for redressal.ratio¶152

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C by the husband's family (respondents in a Section 12 DV Act proceeding) seeking quashing of the application, proceedings and notice No.Coma/181/2021 issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat on the respondent's petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Held (J.M. Khazi, J.): the Karnataka High Court has no territorial jurisdiction - the respondent gave her residential address as Panipat, is stated to be residing at Panipat, Haryana, and maintained her Section 12 petition before the CJM, Panipat; the marriage was solemnized at Panchkula, Haryana. The petition was rejected as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for redressal. The nineteen precedents cited by the petitioners' counsel were not adjudicated upon. Decided 11.09.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 21988 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NEERAJ KUMAR CHANDHA

¶9

S/O SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA

¶10

AGE 43 YEARS

¶11

R/O J -102, VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS JALAHALLI CROSS, T DASARAHALLI

¶12

BANGALORE-560 057

¶13

SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA

¶14

S/O LATE JATTU MAL CHADHA

¶15

AGE 80 YEARS

¶16

R/O J -102, VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS JALAHALLI CROSS, T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-560 057

¶17

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

VINAY MALHOTRA W/O SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA

¶19

AGE 73 YEARS

¶20

R/O J -102, VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS JALAHALLI CROSS, T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-560 057

¶21

RAJEEV CHADHA S/O SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA

¶22

AGE 45 YEARS

¶23

R/O J -102, VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS JALAHALLI CROSS,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

HC-KAR

T DASARAHALLI

BANGALORE-560 057

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.NEERAJ KUMAR CHADHA, (P1 IN PERSON) AND ALSO FOR P2 TO P4)

¶31

AND:

¶32

DEEPIKA NANDWANI D/O RAMAKANT NANDWANI 164/A, MAHAJAN STREET INSAR CHOWK, PANIPAT-132 103 HARAYANA

¶33

…RESPONDENT

¶34

(BY SRI. ABISHEK MARLA M J, ADVOCATE)

¶35

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO APPLICANT/PETITIONER NO.1 BE ALLOWED TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF ALL FOUR APPLICANTS AND QUASH THE APPLICATION, PROCEEDINGS AND THE NOTICE NO.COMA/ 181/2021 ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS PANIPAT ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A, B, C, D.

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Petitioners who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 in a

¶39

petition filed under the provisions of Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, on the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

file of JMFC, Panipat, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the notice No.Coma/181/2021 issued by the said Court.

¶44

In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are the children of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent Deepika Nandwani was celebrated on 09.07.2020. However, on the basis of complaint filed by her on 08.08.2020 and with the help of Bagalagunte Police, she left the matrimonial home with all the money,

¶45

jewellery, silk sarees, etc. Their marriage is annulled by the Family Court, Chandigarh as per her petition dated 17.08.2020. On 22.08.2020, itself she created a new matrimonial profile calling for proposal declaring herself as never married. Sri.P.P.S Sodhi working as Special Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court is master mind of this entire conspiracy of matrimonial fraud. He is paramour of

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

respondent Deepika Nandwani. On 15.09.2020, petitioners

¶49

have sent complaint against him to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. On 27.10.2020, petitioners have received notice from Mahila Thana, Panipat. On 29.10.2020, they have sent a detailed reply to

¶50

the Mahila Thana, Panipat.

¶51

2.1 On 16.01.2021, after more than 5 months of registration of complaint by respondent Deepika Nandwani with Karnataka Police, registration of FIR by City Police, Haryana is with the motive of covering up the matrimonial racket run by P.P.S. Sodhi and his accomplices and in collusion with them.

¶52

2.2 On 09.02.2021, without providing opportunity of hearing and without any warrant of arrest or any kind of authorization, the police from Karnataka and Haryana led by Raju Mehendratta, maternal uncle of respondent Deepika Nandwani entered the building, destroyed the CCTV footage and tore visitors registers and falsely

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

implicated the petitioners in a case of outraging modesty of women constable of Haryana. On 10.02.2021, petitioner No.1 and 4 were incarcerated in Parappana Agrahara in connection with the said case for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 354 IPC.

¶56

2.3 On 12.02.2021, they were released on bail in Bengaluru case. However, they were abducted by Haryana Police on body warrant obtained by gross misrepresentation of facts before Courts in Panipath. On 15.02.2021 petitioner Nos.1 and 4 were granted bail at Panipath. On 29.09.2021 stay was granted by this Court on malicious FIR registered by Hariayan and Karnataka Police.

¶57

2.4 On 08.10.2021 petitioners have received the impugned notice in respect of application filed by respondent Deepika Nandwani and the same is challenged on the following:

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

GROUNDS

¶62

(i) The petition filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is illegal, vicious and mischievous. The allegations made in the petition are false and is continuation of false complaint filed with Bagalagunte Police. She has given statement before the said Police, stating that she is leaving the home of petitioners on her own volition taking all her belongings and she has no dispute with them. Such being the case, she cannot improve her case. She has unleashed the terror on petitioners at the instance of P.P.S. Sodhi and complaint is given against him as per Annexure-K. The

¶63

averments in the petition is nothing but reproduction of the FIR registered with Haryana Police in Cr.No.HRPP.03-0072122021 and case No.CHI/0001163/2021, which is vitiated by latches. Respondent has

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

abducted the petitioners through Haryana Police and a case is also registered against them by the Bagalagunte Police in Cr.No.33/2021. Petitioners have approached this Court in W.P.No.17007/2021 to quash the said proceedings.

¶68

(ii) The impugned complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is manifestation of another arsenal of extortion in the amour of respondent and her paramour P.P.S Sodhi. Respondent is employed as Chief Manager in Punjab and Sindh Bank and drawing double the salary of petitioner No.1. Therefore, she is not entitled for any relief under the D.V. Act. Currently, she is working at New Delhi. By concealing these facts, she has filed petition under D.V. Act. She is also owning several properties. She has walked out of the marriage to resume her relationship with her

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

paramour P.P.S. Sodhi. She is a chronic lier.

¶72

In the above facts and circumstances, the proceedings under D.V. Act are liable to be quashed and hence, the petition.

¶73

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶74

petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:

¶75

(i) Shafeek Vs. The State of Kerala ( Shafeek )¹

¶76

(ii) Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ( Kailashben Mahednrabhai Patel )²

¶77

(iii) Geddam Jhansi and Anr. Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. ( Geddam Jhansi )³

¶78

(iv) A.Ramesh Babu and Ors. Vs. Dharani.S ( A.Ramesh Babu )⁴

¶79

(v) Surya Vadani and Ors Vs. V.Kalaivani ( Surya Vadani )⁵

¶80

(vi) Dhananjay Mohan Zombade and Ors. Vs. Prachi ( Dhananjay Mohan Zombade )⁶

¶81

(vii) Bhupinder Singh Sambyal Vs. Ruchi Jamwal ( Bhupinder Singh Sambyal )⁷

¶82

(viii) Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. ( Inderjit Singh Grewal )⁸

¶83

1 Crl.A.No.1364/2018 [SLP(Crl)No.1885/2018 Dt:12.11.2018]

¶84

2 Crl.A.No.4003/2024 [SLP(Crl)No.4044/2018 Dt:25.09.2024]

¶85

3 [SLP(Crl)No.9556/2022 Dt:07.02.2025]

¶86

4 Crl.P.No.3578/2022 Dt:28.06.2024

¶87

5 Crl.P.No.7101/2011 Dt:06.08.2018

¶88

6 Crl.Appln.No.312/2023 Dt:06.08.2018 (Bombay)

¶89

7 SLA (Crl)No.3023/2024 Dt:04.03.2025

¶90

8 Crl.A.No.1635/2011 [SLP(Crl)No.7787/2010 Dt:23.08.2011

¶91

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

(ix) Premdeep Vs. Bhavana ( Premdeep )⁹

¶95

(x) Smt.Ritu @ Ridhima & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Singh Sangwan ( Ritu @ Ridhima )¹⁰

¶96

(xi) Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja and Anr ( Damanreet Kaur )¹¹

¶97

(xii) K N Vs R G ( K N )¹²

¶98

(xiii) Rupali Gupta Vs Rajat Gupta ( Rupali Gupta )¹³

¶99

(xiv) Niharika Ghosh @ Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh ( Niharika Ghosh )¹⁴

¶100

(xv) Ms Renu Rana Vs. Mr Ajay Rana ( Renu Rana )¹⁵

¶101

(xvi) Gurpreet Dhariwal Vs Amit Jain ( Gurpreet Dhariwal )¹⁶

¶102

(xvii) Premdeep Vs.Bhavana ( Premdeep )¹⁷

¶103

(xviii) Narendra Vs. K Meena ( Narendra )¹⁸

¶104

(xix) Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja (Satish Chander Ahuja)¹⁹

¶105

On the other hand learned counsel representing

¶106

respondent submitted that this Court is not having territorial jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in this

¶107

petition. In fact this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.17007/2021

¶108

9 Crl.WP.No.210/2019 dt. 17.02.2020

¶109

10 CRR-457-2022 dt. 15.03.2022

¶110

11 Crl.Rev.P.No.344/2011 dt.14.05.2012

¶111

12 MAT.App.(F.C.) 93/2018 and CM Appl.18317/2018 dt.12.02.2019

¶112

13 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 143/2014 dt.05.09.2016

¶113

14 MAT.App.(F.C.) 248/2019 and CM Appl.20720/2022 dt. 12.09.2023

¶114

15 MAT.App.(F.C.) 235/2023 dt. 12.10.2023

¶115

16 MAT.App.(F.C.) 311/2019 dt. 16.03.2022

¶116

17 Family Court Appeal No.24/2020 dt.27.08.2021

¶117

18 Civil Appeal No.3253/2008 dt.06.10.2016

¶118

19 Civil Appeal No.2483/2020 dt.15.10.2020

¶119

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

refused to quash the criminal proceedings in

¶122

Cr.No.33/2021 of Panipat PS, Haryana and consequent charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 354-C r/w Section 34 IPC and pray to reject this petition also on the ground of maintainability.

¶123

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶124

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are the children of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent was celebrated on 09.07.2020. They live together in Bengaluru. It appears alleging impotency of petitioner No.1 and non consummation of marriage, respondent has secured divorce from him. She also filed criminal complaint against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 406, 498A, 354C, r/w 34 of IPC with Mahila Thana, Panipath, Haryana. When petitioners fails to appear before the said police, they with the help of Bagalgunte police, Bengaluru, arrested the petitioners on

¶125

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

09.02.2021. In connection with the said incident, the Bagalagunte Police also registered case in Cr.No.50/2021, against the petitioners alleging that they prevent them from discharging their lawful duty.

¶128

Petitioners approached coordinate bench of this Court in WP No.17007/2021 to quash the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.33/2021 of Mahila Thana Panipath, Haryana and Cr.No.50/2021 of Bagalagunte PS. Vide order dated 05.09.2024 coordinate bench of this Court partly allowed the said petition and quashed Criminal proceedings in Cr.No.50/2021 of Bagalgunte PS on the ground that when petitioners were arrested there appears to a scuffle with the concerned police and there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to prevent them from discharging duties.

¶129

However, the prayer of the petitioners to quash

¶130

the criminal proceeding in Crl.No.33/2021 of Mahila Thana Panipath, Haryana came to be rejected on the ground that

¶131

12 -

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

this Court has not having territorial jurisdiction and they are at liberty to approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

¶135

Now through the present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of proceeding initiated against them by the respondent and notice No.Coma/181/2021 issued by the JMFC Panipath in the petition filed under Section 12 of the DV Act. In the said petition, respondent has given her residential address as Panipath. Admittedly, the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 09.07.2019 at Red wood Resort Panchkula,

¶136

Haryana. Though they stay together for some time in Bengaluru, she has left the matrimonial home and at preset stated to be residing at Panipath, Haryana. On that basis respondent has maintained the petition under Section 12 of DV act in the Court CJM Panipath. Consequently, this Court is not having territorial

¶137

jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

¶138

13 -

¶139

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

The petitioner are required to approach the

¶142

High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Despite the fact that this Court is not having territorial jurisdictional, strangely the scrutiny branch has not raised any office objections. Despite learned counsel for respondent raising objections regarding maintainability of the petition before this Court and having suffered adverse order in WP No.17007/2021 refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of Haryana Police Cr.No.33/2021, instead of withdrawing this petition, petitioners insisted on addressing arguments.

¶143

Any how, having regard to the fact that this

¶144

Court is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertained the petition, it is liable to be rejected. However, petitioners are at liberty to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for redressal, and accordingly, the following:

¶145

ORDER

¶146

(i) Petition filed by the petitioners under

¶147

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

¶148

14 -

¶149

NC: 2025:KHC:36464 WP No. 21988 of 2021

¶150

HC-KAR

¶151

India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected as not maintainable.

¶152

(ii) However, petitioners are at liberty to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for redressal.

¶153

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶154

¶155

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notice No.Coma/181/2021 issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat in respect of the application filed by respondent Deepika Nandwani under Section 12 of the DV Act, together with the application and proceedings (Annexures A-D); received by the petitioners on 08.10.2021.¶57
JMFC, Panipat
Prior proceeding
Marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent solemnized on 09.07.2019 at Red wood Resort Panchkula, Haryana (as recorded by this Court); the petitioners state it was celebrated on 09.07.2020.¶135
Prior proceeding
Per the petitioners, on the basis of the respondent's complaint dated 08.08.2020 she left the matrimonial home with money, jewellery and silk sarees with the help of Bagalagunte Police.¶44
Prior proceeding
Their marriage was annulled by the Family Court, Chandigarh pursuant to the respondent's petition dated 17.08.2020 (per the petitioners).¶44
Prior proceeding
FIR registered by City Police, Haryana on 16.01.2021; petitioner Nos.1 and 4 arrested on 09.02.2021, incarcerated in Parappana Agrahara for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 354 IPC, released on bail at Bengaluru on 12.02.2021 and at Panipat on 15.02.2021.¶55
Prior proceeding
On 29.09.2021 this Court granted stay of the FIR registered by the Haryana and Karnataka Police.¶56
Prior proceeding
Bagalagunte Police registered Cr.No.50/2021 against the petitioners alleging that they prevented the police from discharging their lawful duty.¶127
Prior proceeding
In WP No.17007/2021 (seeking quashing of Cr.No.33/2021 of Mahila Thana, Panipat and Cr.No.50/2021 of Bagalagunte PS), the coordinate bench by order dated 05.09.2024 partly allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in Cr.No.50/2021.¶128
Prior proceeding
The prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in Cr.No.33/2021 of Mahila Thana, Panipat was rejected on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction; the petitioners were directed to approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.¶134
Prior proceeding
The respondent, stated to be residing at Panipat, maintained her petition under Section 12 of the DV Act before the CJM, Panipat; notice No.Coma/181/2021 was issued by JMFC Panipat and received by the petitioners on 08.10.2021.¶136

Neeraj Kumar Chandha v. Deepika Nandwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar Chandha v. Deepika Nandwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharan Raj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hamsaraja Vs State by

Mrs. Rafia Sultana Vs the State

T a Manhoranjan Vs B M Kariappa Since Dead by His Lrs

Girish a v Vs the State of Karnataka

Dhayalan Vs the State of Karnataka