IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No.1243 of 2009 --------------------------- Crime No.64/2009 of Pattambi Police Station C.M.P.No.3270/08 in M.C.No.87/2008 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pattambi -------------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------- MUHAMMEDKUTTY @ KUNHAPPA, S/O. KOZHIKOTTIL KUNHAYAMU, THIRUVEGAPPURA AMSOM, KAIPPURAM DESOM, KAIPPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY MS.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE. MR. R. SREEHARI, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ZEENATH @ KUNHIMOL, W/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY @ KUNHAPPA, KOZHIKOTTIL HOUSE, THIRUVEGAPPURA AMSOM, KAIPPURAM DESOM, KAIPPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PATTAMBI. BY MR. P.K. MOHANAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1. MR. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1243 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to call for the records relating to Crime No.64/2009 of Pattambi Police Station and to quash the same. The de facto complainant before the police is the wife who had obtained an order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act & Rules, 2005. It is an interim order. As per that interim order, the husband is restrained from alienating the shared households. Now the complaint before the police is to the effect that the husband had transferred it to some persons and they are causing obstruction, and therefore, there is violation of the order of the court. 2. Inviting proceedings under Section 31(1) of the said case, on the other hand, learned counsel for the husband very strongly contends before me that there has been no alienation whatsoever and therefore, such a case will not lie. This is a matter that has to be investigated and found out. The mere Crl.M.C.No.1243/2009 2 production of an Encumbrance Certificate would not be sufficient to hold non-transfer of a property. Therefore, it is too premature at this stage to quash the proceedings initiated. Therefore, the Crl.M.C. lacks merit and is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN JUDGE smp Crl.M.C.No.1243/2009 3 M.N.KRISHNAN, J. Crl.M.C. No.1243 OF 2009 O R D E R 07.04.2009