IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 286 of 2011() ------------------------ MC.35/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S)/4th RESPONDENT: --------------- BINU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.MAALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ROOPA K.K.,D/O.PADMANABHAN, REKHA BHAVAN, ILLAMMOLA, P.O.MATTANNUR,KANNUR PIN-695169 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH FOR R1 SMT.PRIYA BABU FOR R1 P.P.SRI. I.V. PRAMOD FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.A.NO.563/2011 IN CRL.M.C.NO.286/2011 DISMISSED 18.7.2011. SD/= B.P. RAY, JUDGE PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE-1 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY R1 UNDER THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MATTANNUR AS M.C.NO.35/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE cl B.P. RAY, J. ........................................... Crl.M.C.NO.286 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner, who has been arrayed as 4th respondent before the court below, has filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mattannur under Sections 12,17,18,19,20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming an amount of Rs.10,28,000/= from the husband/respondent No.1 comprising value of ornaments, salary of the 1st respondent, maintenance to the child etc. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is admittedly a friend of the 1st respondent in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner cannot be arrayed as respondent in the complaint as 'respondent' means any adult male person who Crl.M.C.NO.286 OF 2011 : 2 : is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the above referred Act. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 in this case has drawn my attention to the allegations made in the complaint against respondent No.1 in M.C.No.35/2010 and fairly states that even though the 1st respondent in M.C.No.35/2010 is not 'respondent' within the meaning of the Act, he has assaulted the complainant on different occasions and stated specifically that the petitioner has misbehaved with the complainant on several occasions and has committed different offences under the IPC, but fairly states that there is no domestic relationship between the parties. 5. In that view of the matter the complaint as laid down under the Act is not maintainable and the petitioner's name be deleted from the said complaint. It is open to the first respondent to take such action as she deems fit in accordance with law against him. Disposed of accordingly. Sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. cl