IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 365 of 2010 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/12/2009 IN CMP. 3929/2009 IN MC.76/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MUSTHAFA.P.P., S/O.POOKOYA, PUTHUMALIYEKKAL, CHELAKKARA, UTHUVADI, THRISSUR. 2. AYISHA BEEVI, W/O.POOKOYA, KIZHAKEPURA VEEDU, CHELAKKARA, UTHUVADI, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.JOSHI N.THOMAS, MR.K.A.MANIKANDAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUBAIDA, D/O.ABUTTY, KOORI VEEDU, THAZHEKODE, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.SIDDIQUE, AYYANKUZHIYIL, AGASTHYAMUZHI, MUKKOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. SALIM.P.A. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.365 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to have Annexure A3 order dated 03/12/2009 in C.M.P No.3929/2009 in M.C No.76/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery and all further proceedings in pursuance to that quashed. 2. The 1st respondent preferred a complaint under Section 12 of the protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 on which an order has been passed by the learned Magistrate and it is produced as Annexure A2. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the complainant before the court below and 2nd petitioner is her mother-in-law. Allegations are made in the petition which are not relevant for the present purpose. 1st respondent has filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 406, 498A and 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC. Petitioners had filed application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was partly Crl.M.C No.365 OF 2010 Page numbers allowed. It is pointed out that the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent is an abuse of process of the court. It is pointed out that the 1st respondent has no permanent or temporary residence and it is concealing the said fact that she was choosing the address where the petitioner occasionally residing. 3. It must be noticed that the order now challenged is only an interim order passed by the court below. Petitioners can appear before the court below in pursuance to summons issued to them and raise all their contentions before the said court. There is no reason to believe that the court below did not consider those contentions. The above facts are disputed questions of fact which this court cannot go into the proceedings. Reserving the liberty of the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the court below, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv