IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22348 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. ZEENATH ASSAN ALI, AYKARA PARAMBIL HOUSE, WEST KADUNGALLUR P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. FATHIMA KUNJUMOHAMMED, DO. DO. 3. ABITHA HAMEED, FATHIMA MANZIL DO. DO. 4. LEENA WILSON, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, DO. DO. 5. ZEENA JALAL, CRESCENT GARDEN DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KADUNGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUPPATHADAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE FORT COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 3. SANTHOSH N.K., S/O. KOCHUNARAYANAN AGED 39 YEARS, NEAITHURUTHI HOUSE KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. 4. K.C. SHAJI, KADAVIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTAVARA, EAST KADUNGALLUR PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 22348 of 2008 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners want to assail an order passed under Section 138 Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kochi. According to the petitioners, they are aggrieved by the said order. Only the first petitioner was a party to that proceedings. The first petitioner has admittedly been served with a copy of the order . Why have the petitioners come before this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without and before approaching the revisional court to challenge Ext.P5 order in accordance with law? No satisfactory explanations are offered. 2. It is submitted that the other petitioners being not parties to the proceedings, have not been served with the copy of the order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. Had they applied for a copy? It is admitted that they have not applied for. Admittedly the first petitioner has been served with the order. If they can W.P.C.No. 22348 of 2008 2 come together before this Court, why are they not making use of the order issued to the first petitioner. For this also no satisfactory explanation is offered. The counsel submits that there may atleast be a direction that until the petitioners approach the court of revision and obtain orders, the impugned order may not be executed. 3. I am unable to agree. Having come to the wrong forum without any valid explanation, the petitioners cannot request the said forum to keep the order in abeyance until they go to the right forum and initiate proceedings. The petitioners must immediately rush to the revisional court and challenge the order. I am not satisfied that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm