IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3517 of 2009() ------------------------------------ C.M.P.4817/2009 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA. .................. PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MRS.RENUKA, D/O.SANTHA, RESIDING AT BHAGAVATHI PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENTRAPPINNI P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPRHABA, W/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT KORATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. NIJITHA, MINOR, RESIDING AT KORATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. 4. NIKHIL, MINOR, KORATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. 5. RAJAN, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN, RESIDING AT KORATTIPARAMBIL KIZHITHANNI KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3517 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in C.M.P.4817/2009 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda filed by respondents 2 to 4 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that petitioner is not a respondent as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act and therefore the proceedings as against petitioner is not maintainable and continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of process of court and hence it is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a petition under Section 12 of the Act would lie only against a respondent as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act Crmc 3517/09 2 and as petitioner is not such a respondent, proceedings as against him is to be quashed. 4. Petitioner is not an accused before the learned Magistrate. He is only a respondent in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Act, by respondents 2 to 4. Question whether petitioners 2 to 4 are the aggrieved persons as defined under the Act or petitioner and fifth respondent are respondents as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act are all matters to be decided by the learned Magistrate. Petitioner is at liberty to raise these points before the learned Magistrate and contend that proceedings as against him is not maintainable. Petitioner is at liberty to file a petition for deciding the question as a preliminary ground and is also entitled to challenge the order as provided under the Act. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.