IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2567 of 2009 -------------------------------- MC.55/2009 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .......................................... PETITIONER(S):/ACCUSED. -------------------------------------- 1. RETHEESH CHANDRAN @ UNNI, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ENNASSERIYIL VEEDU, ARAMKALLU, KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,S/O.LATE R.KRISHNA PILLAI, ENNASSERIYIL VEEDU,ARAMKALLU, KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VALSA KUMARI, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ENNASSERIYIL VEEDU,ARAMKALLU, KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAJI, D/O.VALSA KUMARI, ENNASSERIYIL VEEDU,ARAMKALLU, KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. RANJU,D/O.VALSA KUMARI, ENNASSERIYIL VEEDU,ARAMKALLU, KARAKULAM, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): /COMPLIANANT & NO PARTY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KEERTHI JAYAN, W/O.RATHEESH CHANDRAN, PRADEEPAM, TC.27/1709,RISHIMANGALAM LASNE, VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2567 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are respondents in M.C.No.55/2009 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent is the petitioner therein. First respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming that she is an aggrieved person and petitioners, the respondents have committed domestic violence. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint contending that first respondent is not an aggrieved person and petitioners are not respondents as defined under the Act and there was no domestic violence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. CRMC 2567/09 2 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act, female cannot be a respondent and therefore, in any case, complaint as against petitioners 3 to 5 is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ajay Kant v. Smt.Alka Sharma (2008 STPL(LE-Crim) 28892). 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint. First of all, petitioners are not the accused, but respondents. The petition pending before the Magistrate is not a criminal proceeding and no cognizance was taken under Section 31 of the Act. The proceedings is essentially civil in nature, providing civil remedy. As provided under Section 28 of the Act, proceedings under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act are governed by the CRMC 2567/09 3 provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, I find no reason to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint. If the case of the petitioners is that they are not respondents as defined under the Act or first respondent is not an aggrieved person, they are at liberty to file a petition before the Magistrate to consider this aspect as a preliminary point and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. With that liberty, petition is dismissed. 14th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv