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
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)