IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4391 of 2008() ------------------------- MC.235/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN M.C --------------- 1. JOY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LONAPPAN, PARAMBATH HOUSE, POOVATHUSSERY P.O.,JAYANTHI ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. MARY LONAPPAN, W/O.LONAPPAN, PARAMBATH HOUSE, POOVATHUSSERY P.O., JAYANTHI ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA/DISTRICT PROTECTION OFFICER, NEAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHERLY P.DAVIS, 39 YEARS, D/O.DEVASSY PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PRESENTLY WORKING AS NURSE AT FARWANIA HOSPITAL, WARD-8, P.O. BOX 18 373 FARWANIA, KUWAIT 181 004. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4391 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 ORDER Against the petitioners, proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A petition has been registered as M.C.No.235 of 2008. The petitioners have now to appear before the learned Magistrate in response to the notice received by them. They are the husband and mother in law respectively of the 2nd respondent - who is the petitioner in the said M.C.No.235 of 2008. 2. The proceedings are sought to be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is the reason ? It is contended that the proceedings are in retaliation to a proceedings for divorce initiated by the 1st petitioner. It is further submitted that there is hopeless delay in filing of the petition. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed. 3. I am not persuaded to agree. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to be Crl.M.C. No.4391 of 2008 2 invoked as a matter of course. Sufficient, compelling and extraordinary reasons must be shown to justify the invocation of such jurisdiction in the interests of justice. The mere fact that the proceedings are initiated belatedly by a spouse or that she had initiated such proceedings only after the husband chose to drag her to court are not by themselves sufficient reasons to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all their contentions in defence to the proceedings initiated against them under Section 12 of the said Act. I find absolutely no justification in the prayer to quash the proceedings. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate and pray for dismissal of the proceedings initiated against them. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-