Madras High Court
Beaze @ Prakash vs P.Mahalakshmi on 16 April, 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.04.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.R.C.(MD)NOs.82 of 2015 and 98 of 2015 1.Beaze @ Prakash 2.Natarajan 3.Poongothai 4.Boss 5.Devi 6.Bheems .. Revision Petitioners in both petitions Vs. P.Mahalakshmi .. Respondent in both revisions Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 18.09.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.5489 of 2012 in M.C.No.11 of 2012 and the order dated 20.09.2013 in M.C.No.11 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti and set aside the same and allow the revision petition. !For Petitioners :: Mr.G.Ramanan ^For Respondent :: Mr.V.Thirumal :COMMON ORDER
The petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.11 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. M.C.No.11 of 2012 was filed by the respondent herein seeking certain reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') such as protection order, residence order, maintenance etc. The petitioners, despite service of notice, did not appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded with the enquiry and finally passed an order on 20.09.2013 granting all the reliefs.
2. Thereafter the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.5489 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti seeking to set aside the exparte order. The learned Magistrate by order dated 30.08.2013, directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- as a condition for setting aside the exparte order. Challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court with Crl.R.C.(MD) No.82 of 2015. Challenging the order made in M.C.No.11 of 2012, the petitioners are before this Court with Crl.R.C.(MD) No.98 of 2015. That is how, both these revisions are before me for disposal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, would raise a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these revisions. According to him, any order made by a Magistrate under the said Act is appealable under Section 29 of the Act. When there is a statutory remedy of appeal available, according to the learned counsel, these revisions are not at all maintainable before this Court. The learned counsel would place reliance on a judgment of this Court in K.Rajendran and another vs. Ambikavathy and another reported in (2013) 2 MLJ (Crl) 406, where this Court has held that such revision has not at all maintainable in view of the fact that a remedy of appeal is available.
5. In view of the settled position of law, I hold that the revisions are not maintainable and it is for the petitioners to file appropriate appeal before the Sessions Court. Since these two revisions were entertained by this Court and kept pending till today, as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the said period spent before this Court shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal before the Sessions Court.
6. With the above directions, the revision petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, however, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy, by filing appropriate appeal.
16.04.2015 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes Note: The Registry is directed to return original impugned order to the petitioners to enable them to work out the remedy in the manner known to law.
RR To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
RR Crl.R.C.(MD)NOs.82 and 98 of 2015 16.04.2015