IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3713 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.529/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CMP.1071/2009 IN MC.117/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT - PROPOSED RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.V.SEBASTIAN, MANICKANAMPARAMBIL IYYATTIL LANE CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. MR. K.PAUL KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENT IN THE M.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHALLY THOMAS, W/O. M.V.THOMAS, MANICKANAMPARAMBIL VYLOPPILLY LANE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017. 2. M.V.THOMAS, MANICKANAMPARAMBIL VYLOPPILLY LANE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. C.S. HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.V.JOHN FOR R2 MR. RENJU JOHN FOR R2 MR. B.JAYAPARAKASH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P. NO. 3713/2009 ORDER ON CRL. M.A.NO. 11757/2009 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 3713/2009 DISMISSED 08.01.2010 sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 3713 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who is the elder brother of the 2nd respondent herein (M.V. Thomas), challenges the appellate order passed by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No. 529 of 2009 as per which that court allowing the appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein (Shally Thomas) ordered impleadment of the revision petitioner as the 2nd respondent in M.C. No. 117 of 2008 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Ernakulam. The said M.C was filed by the 1st respondent originally against her husband, the 2nd respondent herein seeking relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Pending the said M.C, she filed C.M.P. No. 1071 of 2009 to implead the revision petitioner as the 2nd respondent in the M.C. The said application was opposed by the revision petitioner Crl.R.P. No. 3713/2009 : 2 contending inter alia that he was not a “respondent” within the meaning of the said Act and that the applicant therein is not “an aggrieved person” as defined under the Act. Even though the learned Magistrate upheld his contention, on appeal preferred by the 1st respondent herein before the Sessions Court, that court set aside the order of the Magistrate and allowed the impleadment of the revision petitioner as the 2nd respondent. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision. 2. Even though notice was ordered to the 1st respondent, she has not been served so far. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner does not fall under the definition of “the respondent” under the Act and the 1st respondent herein also is not “a person aggrieved” within the definition of the Act and if so, it is unnecessary for the revision petitioner to contest the matter before the Magistrate in a proceeding which is, prima facie, not maintainable. Crl.R.P. No. 3713/2009 : 3 4. The appellate order of the Sessions Judge is only to the effect that the revision petitioner has been arrayed as an additional respondent to the M.C filed by the 1st respondent herein. No orders granting any of the reliefs under Section 12 of the Act has been passed against the revision petitioner. To that extent, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order impleading him as the additional respondent. He cannot question the maintainability of the application filed under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Even the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked to quash a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act. (See Dr. Vijayalakshmi Amma v/s. Bindu and others – ILR 2010 (1) Kerala 60). In case any enforceable order as against the revision petitioner is requested to be passed or is passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner can certainly raise all he aforesaid contentions or challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings including an appeal under Section 29 of the Act and in that event, the petitioner will be Crl.R.P. No. 3713/2009 : 4 entitled to raise all the contentions available to him including the aforesaid plea that he does not answer the definition of “the respondent” and the applicant “an aggrieved person”. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this revision is dismissed. Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv