IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3662 of 2009() ------------------------------ ORDER DATED 25.9.2009 IN C.M.P.6340 OF 2009 IN MC.5/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- RAJENDRAN, KATTIKAM VEEDU,KADAKKARAPALLY P.O.,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & STATE OF KERALA -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. RETNAMMA, KATTIKAM VEEDU,ONPATHUTHENGINCHIRA, KADAKKARAPALLY P.O.,CHERTHALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN J. ----------------------------- CRL.R.P No. 3662 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.5 of 2009, a petition filed by the second respondent, who is none other than the mother of the revision petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Cherthala. On 25.9.2009 the learned Magistrate passed the following order: “Complainant present. Sworn statement recorded. On going through the sworn statement and the document produced, I am convinced that there are sufficient materials and grounds to proceed with the case. Hence case taken on file as C.C.1346/09 u/s.31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Issue Non-bailable Warrant to accused. Case posted to 9.10.09.” 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order issuing non-bailable warrant, this revision petition was filed. According to the learned counsel, the dispute between the revision petitioner and the second respondent was settled and a consent order was passed. Subsequently, for no justifiable reason, the second respondent filed a petition alleging non-compliance of the order. Though there is no justifiable reason to issue an arrest warrant stated in the order, the learned Magistrate ordered to issue arrest warrant. According CRL.R.P No. 3662 of 2009 2 to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is prepared to appear before the lower court and the order to issue non- bailable arrest warrant is not justified. 3. Going by the order impugned, I find no reason to issue the non-bailable warrant. In the above circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. In the result, this revision petition is allowed on condition that the revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court on or before 14.12.2009, failing which this revision petition would stand dismissed. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab CRL.R.P No. 3662 of 2009 3