IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3289 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.770/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CMP 2634/2007 IN MC.16/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ----------------------- 1. KESAVA PILLAI, KESAVA VILASOM, MANKATTUMOOLA, OORUPOIKA, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SARADHAMMA, W/O. KESAVA PILLAI, KESAVA VILASOM, MANKATTUMOOLA, OORUPOIKA, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI, KESAVA VILASOM, MANKATTUMOOLA, OORUPOIKA, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. USHA KUMARI, W/O. SURESH KUMAR, KESAVA VILASOM, MANKATTUMOOLA, OORUPOIKA, ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------- 1. ANITHA KUMARI, W/O. LATE SASIDHARAN NAIR, MANKATTUMOOLA, EDAKOTTU VILLAGE, OORUPOIKA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P 3289/2008 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.9956/08 IN CRL.R.P.3289/08 DISMISSED 7.10.2008 SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Okb/- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3289 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are the respondents in M.C.16 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal. First respondent is the complainant. She filed C.M.P.2364 of 2007 seeking an order under section 23 of Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Learned Magistrate as per order dated 7.8.2007 restrained petitioners 3 and 4 from entering into the residential building in the plaint B schedule property now occupied by first respondent until further orders. All the petitioners were restrained from collecting any rent from the tenants occupying the building in the plaint A schedule property. The second part of the order was later modified by the learned Magistrate as per order dated 13.9.2007 to the effect that petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are restrained from collecting any rent from the building in the plaint A schedule property and allowed first respondent to collect only 3/4th share of the rent. Petitioners challenged that order before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 770 of 2007. First CRRP3289/08 2 respondent has also challenged the order contending that all the reliefs sought for in the main petition should have been allowed. Learned Sessions Judge disposed both the appeals together as per judgment dated 17.7.2008. Both the appeals were dismissed confirming the order passed by learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate was directed to dispose the main application as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Petitioners are challenging the order in this revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard. 3. The learned counsel submitted that learned Sessions Judge decided the questions which are to be settled in the main application and whether an order of injunction restraining petitioners from collecting the rent is within the scope of clause (e) of section 18 was decided by the learned Sessions Judge when that is one of the questions to be decided ultimately in the main application. Learned counsel also submitted that learned Sessions Judge rendered a finding on the ownership of the furniture of the downstair portion of the building, which was later tenanted by the third petitioner though originally a hotel CRRP3289/08 3 was run by third petitioner. 4. Learned counsel also submitted that as the learned Magistrate has to decide all the questions and learned Sessions Judge had directed the learned Magistrate to dispose the main application as expeditiously as possible, all the questions may be directed to be decided by the learned Magistrate untrammeled by any observation in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. There is force in the submission made by learned counsel. When the learned Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to dispose the main application, necessarily learned Magistrate has to decide all the points involved. Whatever observations are made by learned Sessions Judge is only for the purpose of interlocutory order and will not prevent learned Magistrate from considering the question in the proper perspective. Learned Magistrate to dispose the main case untrammeled by any observation in his previous orders or the order passed by learned Sessions Judge. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-