Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.
Kerala High Court
M.K.Sivasankara Panicker vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4676 of 2008()


1. M.K.SIVASANKARA PANICKER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. I.T.PRADEEP, S/O.SIVASANKARA PANICKER,
3. I.T.PRASAD, S/O.SIVASANKARA PANICKER,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUJA, W/O.I.T.PRAKASH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :03/12/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.M.C. No. 4676 of 2008
            -------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008

                               ORDER

The petitioners are the father-in-law and brothers-in-law of the petitioner/the complainant before the Magistrate under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. They have come before this Court with a prayer that the proceedings initiated against them may be quashed.

2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings in so far as it relates to the petitioners who are only the father and brothers of the husband of the 2nd respondent/complainant before the Magistrate are totally incorrect and false. Not only that they are incorrect and false but also they are inconsistent with the earlier averments made in the other proceedings. Hence it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners may be Crl.M.C. No. 4676 of 2008 -: 2 :- quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.

3. The proceedings are under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. It is not necessary for the petitioners to personally appear in such proceedings before the learned Magistrate. They can appear through counsel and can advance their contentions. The allegations in the petition, it cannot be said, do not support the present proceedings. The contention is that the allegations in the present petition under Sec.12 of the Domestic Violence Act are inconsistent with the averments made in some earlier proceedings.

4. I am not persuaded to agree that the reasons stated are sufficient to justify invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. I take alert note of the consequences. The petitioners can raise their contentions before the learned Magistrate. They having already appeared that court through counsel, I am not persuaded to agree that the proceedings deserve to be quashed for the only alleged reason that the allegations raised in the present complaint are inconsistent with the averments and allegations raised in earlier proceedings. Nor am I satisfied that there is such blatant incongruity between the allegations raised in the present petition and the averments raised in the earlier proceedings between the parties. Crl.M.C. No. 4676 of 2008 -: 3 :-

5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may, however, hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all relevant and appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge