//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

Their Lordships of Kerala High court restrained themselves to interfere in the exparte interim orders of the lower court in domestic violence case as those orders are appealable to the District. While disposing suspended the interim exparte orders of the magistrate court for a period 3 weeks with a condition not move the articles required by magistrate court to seize

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Grandville : Cent Proverbes

Grandville : Cent Proverbes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Crl.MC.No. 244 of 2011()

 

1. GIRISH
Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
… Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

Dated :28/01/2011

O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

—————————————-

Crl.M.C.No.244 of 2011

—————————————

Dated this 28th day of January, 2011

ORDER

Petitioners are respondents in M.C.No.12 of 2010 of the

court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam, which

is a proceeding initiated by respondent No.2 under provisions of

the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (for short,

“the Act”). On the application preferred by respondent No.2,

learned Magistrate has passed Annexure-4, order ex parte on

January 14, 2011 directing petitioners to return the personal

belongings and valuables allegedly belonging to respondent No.2

including a Maruti Wagon R car bearing registration No.

KL-02/AC 8465 and restraining petitioners from communicating

with respondent No.2 or causing any act of domestic violence.

Pursuant to Annexure-4, order learned Magistrate passed

Annexure-5, order on January 20, 2011 also ex parte directing the

Station House Officer, Aroor to assist respondent No.2 to take the

above said vehicle from the possession of petitioners. The Sub

Inspector was also directed to implement Annexure-4, order.

Challenge in this proceeding is to Annexures-4 and 5, orders.

Learned counsel submitted that Annexures-4 and 5, orders are

Crl.M.C.No.244 of 2011
-: 2 :-
illegal in that, it is without entering necessary satisfaction as to

the necessity to pass such orders that the learned Magistrate has

issued the said orders and hence it is within the power of this

court to interfere under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short, “the Code) . Learned counsel has placed

reliance on the decision in Dr.Preceline George Vs. State of

Kerala (2010(1) KLT 454). It is also submitted by learned

counsel that petitioners did not get notice of the proceedings

which culminated in Annexures-4 and 5, orders and they are yet

to get a copy of the said orders. Learned counsel requested this

court to interfere under Sec.482 of the Code and at any rate it is

requested that operation of those orders may be stayed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and

learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out

that interim orders passed under the Act are appealable under

Sec.29 of the Act as held by this court in Chithrangathan Vs.

Seema (2007(4) KLT 424). When statutory remedy of appeal

under Sec.29 of the Act as held by this court in Chithrangathan

Vs. Seema (supra) is available to the petitioners, there is no

reason why this court should interfere under Sec.482 of the

Code. Whatever challenge petitioners have against Annexures-4

and 5, orders can be raised in the appellate court. In view of

Crl.M.C.No.244 of 2011
-: 3 :-
Sec.29 of the Act and the decision of this court in

Chithrangathan Vs. Seema referred to above I am not inclined

to interfere under Sec.482 of the Code. But having regard to the

circumstances stated and since a copy of the impugned orders

are not obtained by the petitioners so that they could prefer an

appeal as provided under law. I am inclined to grant some relief

to the petitioners.

Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of

directing that Annexures-4 and 5, orders to the extent it

concerned personal belongings and valuables referred to therein

including the Maruti Wagon R car alone will stand in abeyance

for a period of three (3) weeks from this day on condition that

petitioners shall not during the said period dispose of or remove

the said articles from the local limits of the village where they are

residing.

 
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: