IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 OP(CRL.).NO. 46 OF 2011(Q) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2010 IN CMP 7889 /2010 IN MC.94/2011 OF J.M.F.C.-I, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SUDHA NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.LATE NANDAGOPAN, IDANATTU HOUSE, THALAYAR, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VIJAYAMMA, KIZHAKKEDATH VADAKKETHIL, KODUKULANJIKARODU, KOZHUVALLOOR P.O., VENMANI. 2. PONNAMMA, EDANADU VEETTIL, THALAYAR, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK. 3. REMADEVI, W/O.OMANAKUTTAN NAIR, EDANADU VEETTIL, THALAYAR, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK. 4. OMANAKUTTAN NAIR, EDANADU VEETTIL, THALAYAR, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK. ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R1 THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(Crl.) No.46 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Respondent No.1 appears through counsel. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner who is not a party to the proceeding in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur (M.C. No.94 of 2011) challenges the order dated 24.11.2010 on C.M.P. No.7889 of 2010 (Ext.P2) as per which learned Magistrate has issued direction to the Sub Inspector of Police to give sufficient protection to respondent No.1 for starting residence in House No.255 in Ward No.II of Kuttoor Panchyat. The Sub Inspector was also directed to file a report after compliance with the order before 03.12.2010. Leaned counsel submits that pursuant to the said order petitioner who was not a party to proceeding has been evicted and she has no house to stay presently. Learned counsel submits that though appeal has been provided under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) that remedy is not available to the petitioner since O.P(CRL.) No.46 of 2011 -: 2 :- appeal is provided only for an aggrieved person and petitioner being not a party to the proceeding she is not an 'aggrieved person' as defined in Sec.2(a) of the Act. It is contended by learned counsel that Sec.19 of the Act does not contemplate any such order like Ext.P2. Learned counsel requested interference by this Court with the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that petitioner has already filed an application for impleading in the case in the court below on 13.12.2010 and that application is pending. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.1 has no objection in petitioner being impleaded in the proceeding. 3. Since petitioner is not a party to the proceeding proper remedy of the petitioner is to apply to get impleaded as provided under law if so provided, and challenge the impugned order or prefer appeal if that is the proper remedy. It is also relevant to note that proceedings under the Act are not criminal proceedings. In the above circumstances I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case at this stage. Petitioner can pursue her remedy she has already taken recourse to. Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application for impleadment as early as possible and at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. O.P(CRL.) No.46 of 2011 -: 3 :- Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner will be filing an application to set aside the ex parte order. If any such application is filed learned Magistrate shall dispose of that application also within the period of three weeks of the filing of such application after giving respondents concerned opportunity to file objection thereto. Petitioner shall make available a copy of this judgment before the learned Magistrate for compliance. Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv