IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 497 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2010 IN CMP 6957/2010 IN MC.28/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. FRANCIS, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.POILOSE, MELEDATH HOUSE, TRIKKUR DESOM, TRIKKUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SANJU FRANCIS, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS, MELEDATH HOUSE, TRIKKUR DESOM, TRIKKUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & STATE --------------------------------- 1. FANCY, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.MELEDATH VARGHESE, MELEDATH HOUSE, TRIKKUR, THRISSUR DIST. PIN - 680 314. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.497 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011. ORDER Respondents in M.C.No.28 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakkuda are the petitioners before me. That is a proceeding initiated by the respondent under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Petitioners contended that there is no domestic relationship between respondent and them and hence M.C.No.28 of 2010 is not maintainable. Challenging maintainability, they also filed C.M.P.No.6957 of 2010. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 01.12.2010 which is sought to be challenged in this proceeding invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 2. The order under challenge certainly is not an interlocutory order in character. For, an interlocutory order is one which is passed in aid of further proceedings in the case. In the present case, maintainability of M.C.No.28 of 2010 is challenged by filing C.M.P.No.6957 of 2010 and if that challenge is upheld, C.M.P.No.6957 of 2010 ought to have been allowed the consequence of which is a dismissal of M.C.No.28 of 2010. Hence in my view, the order under challenge is not an interlocutory order. If not a final order it is interlocutory Crl.MC No.497/2011 2 in character which is revisable under Section 397(1) of the Code. In that view of the matter a petition under Section 482 of the Code is not maintainable. Resultantly this petition is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioners to challenge the impugned order under Section 397 (1) of the Code before the appropriate forum. In case filing of the revision is barred by limitation it is directed that the time from 15.02.2011 (date of filing of this case) till the date notified for delivery of a certified copy of this order or its actual delivery whichever is earlier, shall be excluded from computing the period of limitation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks