IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 329 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRMP.2195/2008 AND 2196/08 IN MC. NO.29/08 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI .................... PETITIONER(S): ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------- BALAN GURUKKAL S/O.NARAYANAN GURUKKAL, POYYIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE ------------------------- 1. SUJINI, W/O.CHANDRAN, POYYIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 329 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner has been impleaded in a proceedings initiated before the learned Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. (for short the DVA). That proceedings has been initiated by the first respondent herein. Originally there were three persons arrayed as respondent in that petition under Section 12 of the Act. The first respondent in such petition is the husband of the first respondent herein. The other two are brothers of the said husband. The petitioner herein is another brother of the said husband. The first respondent in that petition has claimed relief in respect of a residential building which she claimed to be the share household. A contention, it is seen, was raised before the court that the husband has no title over the alleged shared household and the title vests in the petitioner herein, brother-in-law of the first respondent. It is also conceded that the petitioner herein through Crl.M.C.No. 329 of 2009 2 his wife has initiated proceedings before the civil court against the first respondent. 2. In these circumstances for effective relief with all concerned on the party array the first respondent appears to have felt the need to array the petitioner herein as an additional respondent in the petition under Section 12 of the Act. That petition was allowed by the learned Magistratem notwithstanding the opposition by the petitioner herein and the other respondents. By the impugned order, copy of which is produced as Annex.3, the learned Magistrate permitted impleadment of the petitioner in such proceedings for a proper and effective resolution of the controversy raised in such petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the impleadment of the petitioner is not justified at all. I am unable to agree. I must remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise. I have no hesitation to agree that the petitioner is a necessary party for a proper disposal of the petition filed under Section 12. It is not necessary for me to go into further details. 4. The mandate for expedition of an application under Section 12 is clearly revealed in the express as well as the implied provisions Crl.M.C.No. 329 of 2009 3 of the DVA. I am not satisfied that there is any justification in the prayer to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner must participate in the proceedings under Section 12 and if it be found necessary the impugned order can also be challenged along with the final order that is to be passed in the petition under Section 12. That option of the petitioner shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I have only chosen to take the view that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be invoked now. The option of the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions and to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceedings later under Section 29 of the DVA shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. (R. BASANT) Judge tm