IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 365 of 2010()
1. MUSTHAFA.P.P.
... Petitioner
2. AYISHA BEEVI, W/O.POOKOYA,
Vs
1. SUBAIDA, D/O.ABUTTY,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :03/02/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------
Crl.M.C No.365 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February 2010
-----------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
seeking to have Annexure A3 order dated 03/12/2009 in C.M.P
No.3929/2009 in M.C No.76/2009 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery and all further
proceedings in pursuance to that quashed.
2. The 1st respondent preferred a complaint under
Section 12 of the protection of woman from Domestic Violence
Act 2005 on which an order has been passed by the learned
Magistrate and it is produced as Annexure A2. The 1st petitioner
is the husband of the complainant before the court below and 2nd
petitioner is her mother-in-law. Allegations are made in the
petition which are not relevant for the present purpose. 1st
respondent has filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry against the petitioners
alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 406, 498A
and 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC. Petitioners had filed application for
anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was partly
Crl.M.C No.365 OF 2010 Page numbers
allowed. It is pointed out that the proceedings initiated by the 1st
respondent is an abuse of process of the court. It is pointed out
that the 1st respondent has no permanent or temporary residence
and it is concealing the said fact that she was choosing the
address where the petitioner occasionally residing.
3. It must be noticed that the order now challenged is
only an interim order passed by the court below. Petitioners can
appear before the court below in pursuance to summons issued to
them and raise all their contentions before the said court. There
is no reason to believe that the court below did not consider those
contentions. The above facts are disputed questions of fact which
this court cannot go into the proceedings. Reserving the liberty of
the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the court
below, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv