IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1728 of 2009() ------------------------- CMP.1770/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I, HARIPAD .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. PURUTHOTHAMAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, KALLUMOOTIL PUTHUVELIL, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH MURI, AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. VALSALA, W/O.PURUTHOTHAMAN, KALLUMOOTTIL PUTHUVELIL, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH MURI, AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE. 3. SWAPNA, D/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, SWASTHI, MUTHUKULAM, SOUTH MURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE. 4. SURESH, H/O.SWAPNA, SWASTHI, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH MURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV.MR.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANDHYA @ INDUMOL, W/O.DEEPAK, USHUS, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH MURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1728 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 8th day of June,2009 ORDER Petitioners are respondents in CMP 1770/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Haripad filed by first respondent under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the prayer for residence order in Annexure 1 complaint and Annexure 3 order. Annexure 3 order is passed by the Magistrate on 16.4.2008. Annexure 2 order is an appealable order. The remedy of the petitioners is to file an appeal against Annexure 3. The order cannot be modified as sought for by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the petitioners have an effective remedy of statutory appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that Annexure 1 complaint was filed to defeat the orders of the civil court when petitioners Crl.M.C.1728/2009 2 approached Sub Court, Mavelikkara by filing O.S.89/2008 and obtained interim orders. 4. On hearing the learned counsel I do not find any reason to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 5. The argument of the learned counsel then is that as sub section (5) of Section 12 of the Act mandates that the application filed under section 12(1) shall be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the first hearing and it is not disposed, Magistrate may be directed to dispose the same immediately within a time frame. 6. Section 12 provides the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate. Sub section (5) provides that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing. 7. From the materials produced it is not clear when the case was posted for first time for hearing. Anyway Annexure 3 order shows that the complaint was filed in 2008. In such circumstance, Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Haripad is directed to dispose the application under section 12 without further delay in any case within fifty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Crl.M.C.1728/2009 3 Petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006