CRL.MC No. 2125 of 2008 · Kerala High Court

R.BASANT, J------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2125 of 2008-------------------------------------Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008ORDERAgainst the petitioners, the wife of the 1st petitioner, ie. the1st respondent herein, has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The2nd petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. Evidently after getting scent of the petition under Section 12 of the D.V Act filed by the 1st respondent before the learned Magistrate on 07.04.08,the 1st petitioner has gone to the Family Court and has filed an application for divorce on 26.05.08. Thereafter the petitioner has come running to this Court with a prayer that proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V Act may be quashed.

What is the reason ? What is the legal justification formaking such a prayer to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C ?The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations are false. If the allegations are false, the petitioner must raise that contention before the learned Magistrate and attempt to substantiate the same before the learned Magistrate. For that reason powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be Crl.M.C. No.2125 of 2002invoked. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that no domestic incident report under Section 12(1) of the D.V Acthas been obtained and that is the second reason on which the proceedings must be quashed. The proviso to Section 12(1) of the D.V Act only obliges the Magistrate to take into consideration the domestic incident report before the order is passed. Orderhas not been passed so far. It is for the petitioner to raise this contention before the learned Magistrate that no orders should bepassed in view of the stipulation under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the D.V Act. I have no reason to assume that the learnedMagistrate will not consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

Thirdly and finally it is contended that because of the subsequent application for divorce, the earlier application filed by the 1st respondent under the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act, 2005 should not be entertained. Less said about the said contention, the better. Merely because, evidently after coming to know of the complaint filed before the learnedMagistrate by the 1st respondent under the Protection of Womenfrom Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner ran to the Family Crl.M.C. No.2125 of 2003 Court and filed an application for divorce, the petitioner cannot get the proceedings under the D.V Act quashed.

In short, no tenable ground has been urged by the petitioner to quash the proceedings which can be accepted.

This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE)rtr/-