The Delhi High Court recently upheld the summons issued to Uttar Pradesh Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Raghuraj Pratap Singh, famously known as Raja Bhaiya, in a domestic violence case filed by his wife Bhanvi Kumari Singh. 

Raja Bhaiya and Bhanvi Kumari Singh are currently going through a contested divorce after 28 years of marriage. He filed for divorce, citing cruelty and desertion. Bhanvi Singh has accused him of domestic abuse, an extramarital affair and financial fraud. 

Before the Delhi High Court, Raghuraj Pratap Singh challenged a July 2024 order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) of the Rouse Avenue Courts, the designated court for criminal cases against Members of Parliament (MPs) and MLAs.

It was his argument that the designated MP/MLA court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) and that the case should have been filed before the jurisdictional court at Saket. 

In the judgement passed on May 30, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that the designated MP/MLA court at Rouse Avenue Courts remains a competent magistrate court under the PWDV Act and can hear proceedings against sitting legislators.

“The underlying purpose [for creating special courts for cases against legislators] 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,” the Court observed.

Therefore, it dismissed Singh’s petition. 

His lawyers had argued that proceedings under the PWDV Act are predominantly civil in nature and therefore fall outside the scope of courts designated to handle criminal cases involving elected representatives. They also alleged that Singh’s wife had engaged in “forum shopping” by withdrawing an earlier petition filed before the Saket Courts and refiling it before the Rouse Avenue court.

The High Court rejected these arguments and observed that although remedies under the Domestic Violence Act are largely civil, the law also contains criminal enforcement provisions, including penalties for violating protection orders. 

The Court noted that proceedings under the PWDV Act are expressly entrusted to judicial magistrates and metropolitan magistrates and are governed by criminal procedure.

Advocates Dhruv Gupta and Anubhav Garg appeared for Raghuraj Pratap Singh.

Advocates Arvind Kumar Shukla, Surbhi Khanna, Neena Shukla and Kushagra Sinha represented Bhanvi Kumari Singh.