IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2125 of 2008()
1. SHAJIMON, AGED 37, S/O.VISWANATHAN,
... Petitioner
2. JAGADAMMA, AGED 62, W/O.VISWANATHAN,
Vs
1. SANDHYA, AGED 34, W/O.SHAJIMON,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :06/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.2125 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008
ORDER
Against the petitioners, the wife of the 1st petitioner, ie. the
1st respondent herein, has filed an application under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The
2nd petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. Evidently after
getting scent of the petition under Section 12 of the D.V Act filed
by the 1st respondent before the learned Magistrate on 07.04.08,
the 1st petitioner has gone to the Family Court and has filed an
application for divorce on 26.05.08. Thereafter the petitioner has
come running to this Court with a prayer that proceedings under
Section 12 of the D.V Act may be quashed.
2. What is the reason ? What is the legal justification for
making such a prayer to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C ?
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the
allegations are false. If the allegations are false, the petitioner
must raise that contention before the learned Magistrate and
attempt to substantiate the same before the learned Magistrate.
For that reason powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be
Crl.M.C. No.2125 of 200 2
invoked. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that
no domestic incident report under Section 12(1) of the D.V Act
has been obtained and that is the second reason on which the
proceedings must be quashed. The proviso to Section 12(1) of
the D.V Act only obliges the Magistrate to take into consideration
the domestic incident report before the order is passed. Order
has not been passed so far. It is for the petitioner to raise this
contention before the learned Magistrate that no orders should be
passed in view of the stipulation under the proviso to Section 12
(1) of the D.V Act. I have no reason to assume that the learned
Magistrate will not consider the same and take appropriate
decision in accordance with law.
3. Thirdly and finally it is contended that because of the
subsequent application for divorce, the earlier application filed by
the 1st respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 should not be entertained. Less said about the
said contention, the better. Merely because, evidently after
coming to know of the complaint filed before the learned
Magistrate by the 1st respondent under the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner ran to the Family
Crl.M.C. No.2125 of 200 3
Court and filed an application for divorce, the petitioner cannot
get the proceedings under the D.V Act quashed.
4. In short, no tenable ground has been urged by the
petitioner to quash the proceedings which can be accepted.
5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-