1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL.O.P.(MD).No.5297 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 1. A.Chandravathi 2. M.Asha 3. P.Sridevi 4. D.Paranthaman : Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 5 Vs. S.Dhivyalakshmi : Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.55 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and quash the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Chandrakumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Hariharan O R D E R Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.55 of 2011, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, the petitioners, who have been shown as accused 2 to 5 in the said case, have come up with this Criminal Original Petition. The respondent herein is the complainant in the said case. 2. The respondent is the wife of one Srikanth, who is the first accused in the instant case. The petitioners herein are the relatives of the first accused. The respondent filed the said case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], seeking a protection order under Section 18, for residence order under Section 19, for monetary relief under Section 20, for custody order under Section 21 and for compensation under Section 22 of the Act. 3. The said petition was, thus, obviously not a complaint in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. Therefore, in my considered view, the Lower Court was not right in treating the said petition as a complaint as defined in Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take cognizance upon the same. Thus, it is needless to point out that question of taking cognizance will arise only upon any offence said to have been committed by an accused. Here, in this case, since the orders sought https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 for do not relate to any offence, the Lower Court was not right in treating the said case as a Calendar Case. 4. This legal position was already settled by this Court in M.Dhamodharan vs. Subbulakshmi reported in 2008 (3) MLJ (Crl) 1554 as early as in the year 2008. In view of the above settled position of law, the Lower Court was not right in treating the said petition of the respondent as a complaint and to treat the petitioners as accused. Instead, the Lower Court ought to have taken the case on file as a Miscellaneous Case and ought to have dealt with the same in accordance with law without treating the petitioners herein as accused. 5. In such view of the matter, the proceeding in C.C.No.55 of 2011, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, treating the petition of the respondent as complaint and the order taking the cognizance are quashed and instead, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to treat the case as a Miscellaneous Case as against the petitioners and the husband of the respondent herein and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. It is further clarified that the petitioners herein shall not be treated as accused in the said case. The Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. 2. -Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. +1 CC to Mr.A.Hariharan, Advocate (SR.No.35082) ORDER MADE IN CRL.O.P.(MD).No.5297 of 2011 11.10.2011 NB NSV/20.10.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/