CRL.MC No. 4391 of 2008 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Nov 2008
- Bench
- R BASANT
Provisions considered
Judgment
R.BASANT, J------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4391 of 2008-------------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008ORDERAgainst the petitioners, proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act, 2005. A petition has been registered asM.C.No.235 of 2008. The petitioners have now to appear before the learned Magistrate in response to the notice received by them. They are the husband and mother in law respectively of the 2nd respondent - who is the petitioner in the said M.C.No.235of 2008.
The proceedings are sought to be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.What is the reason ? It is contended that the proceedings are in retaliation to a proceedings for divorce initiated by the 1stpetitioner. It is further submitted that there is hopeless delay in filing of the petition. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners may be quashed.
I am not persuaded to agree. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to be Crl.M.C. No.4391 of 20082invoked as a matter of course. Sufficient, compelling and extraordinary reasons must be shown to justify the invocation of such jurisdiction in the interests of justice. The mere fact that the proceedings are initiated belatedly by a spouse or that she had initiated such proceedings only after the husband chose to drag her to court are not by themselves sufficient reasons to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrateand raise all their contentions in defence to the proceedings initiated against them under Section 12 of the said Act. I find absolutely no justification in the prayer to quash the proceedings.
This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate and pray for dismissal of the proceedings initiated against them. (R.BASANT, JUDGE)rtr/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
DomesticViolence Act, 2005; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 17 Nov 2008. The bench was R BASANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.