IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.01.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL.RC.No. 1185 of 2009 & Crl.M.P.No. 1 of 2009 V. Palaniammal .. Petitioner /vs/ Mrs. Thenmozhi .. Respondent Prayer: The Criminal Revision case filed under section 397 & 401 Criminal Procedure Code against the order made in CMP No.2475 of 2009 in CMP No.6613 of 2008 dated 15.09.2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Coimbatore and District. . . . For petitioner : M/s. R. Saseetharan ORDER The respondent has filed a miscellaneous petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore in CMP No.6613 of 2003 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking certain reliefs such as maintenance, compensation, return of Jewellery etc., The petitioner has been shown as the third respondent in the said miscellaneous petition. When that be so, the petitioner filed CMP No. 2475 of 2009 before the learned Magistrate with a prayer to discharge her from the said proceeding. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 15.09.2009 dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records. 3. The lower Court has dismissed the discharge petition on the ground that the Court is not empowered to discharge a person in such a proceeding where the proceeding is dealt with as a miscellaneous proceeding. The learned counsel for the petitioner would try to find fault with the same on the ground that when there are no materials against the petitioner, the lower Court ought to have discharged her. The learned counsel would rely on section 28(2) of the Act to substantiate his contention that the Court is empowered to discharge the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In my considered opinion, the said contention cannot be countenanced at all. The question of discharge pre-supposes an offence allegedly committed by an individual. 5. Here, the learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly concede that the Miscellaneous proceeding before the lower court filed by the respondent is not for any offence but it is only for certain other reliefs which are available under the Act. When there is no offence requiring framing of charge, question of discharge does not arise at all. Therefore, the petition filed before the lower court seeking to discharge the petitioner from the proceedings is highly misconceived and therefore, the lower Court is right in dismissing the same. 6. A perusal of the section 28(a) upon which much reliance is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would go to show that the Court which deals with a petition under Section 12 of the Act, can evolve its own procedure to regulate and to pass final orders. But, it does not mean that the Court can discharge a person by invoking the said provision when there is no offence said to have been committed by the individual. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar pal/sms To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Coimbatore District. 2.-do-through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. + 1 CC to Mr.R.Saratharan,Advocate,SR.2301 CRL.RC.No. 1185 of 2009 & Crl.M.P.No. 1 of 2009 SJ (CO) SS (29.01.2010) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/