Retheesh Chandran @ Unni vs Keerthi Jayan on 14 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Retheesh Chandran @ Unni vs Keerthi Jayan on 14 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2567 of 2009()


1. RETHEESH CHANDRAN @ UNNI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,S/O.LATE R.KRISHNA
3. VALSA KUMARI, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
4. RAJI, D/O.VALSA KUMARI,
5. RANJU,D/O.VALSA KUMARI,

                        Vs



1. KEERTHI JAYAN, W/O.RATHEESH CHANDRAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :14/08/2009

 O R D E R
             M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
            --------------------------
              Crl.M.C.No.2567 of 2009
            --------------------------

                       ORDER

Petitioners are respondents in M.C.No.55/2009

on the file of Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. First

respondent is the petitioner therein. First

respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), claiming

that she is an aggrieved person and petitioners,

the respondents have committed domestic violence.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint

contending that first respondent is not an

aggrieved person and petitioners are not

respondents as defined under the Act and there was

no domestic violence.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

was heard.

CRMC 2567/09 2

3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners is that as defined under

Section 2(q) of the Act, female cannot be a

respondent and therefore, in any case, complaint as

against petitioners 3 to 5 is not maintainable.

Reliance was placed on the decision of Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Ajay Kant v. Smt.Alka Sharma

(2008 STPL(LE-Crim) 28892).

4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no

reason to invoke the extra ordinary inherent

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint.

First of all, petitioners are not the accused, but

respondents. The petition pending before the

Magistrate is not a criminal proceeding and no

cognizance was taken under Section 31 of the Act.

The proceedings is essentially civil in nature,

providing civil remedy. As provided under Section

28 of the Act, proceedings under Sections 18, 19,

20, 21 and 22 of the Act are governed by the

CRMC 2567/09 3

provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such

circumstances, I find no reason to exercise the

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure to quash the complaint. If the case of

the petitioners is that they are not respondents as

defined under the Act or first respondent is not an

aggrieved person, they are at liberty to file a

petition before the Magistrate to consider this

aspect as a preliminary point and pass appropriate

order in accordance with law.

With that liberty, petition is dismissed.

14th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *