Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu passed in C.A.No.21 of 2016, allowing the appeal and reversing the order dated 22.6.2016 passed in D.V.C.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

2. The respondent has filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Domestic Violence Act) restraining the petitioners from harassing the respondent both physically and mentally and also directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards maintenance, Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.5,00,00,000/- towards mental torture and emotional distress caused by the petitioners.

7. By the judgment dated 13.2.2017, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu allowed the appeal, thereby setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and made over the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Alandur to decide the case after giving further opportunities to both sides to adduce evidence. Challenging the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, the petitioners have filed the Criminal Revision Case.

(i)Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in CDJ 1979 SC 473.

(ii)State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhooraji, reported in CDJ 2001 SC 487.

(iii)Ajay Kumar Ghoshal and others v. State of Bihar and another, reported in CDJ 2017 SC 094.

(iv)The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Prosecution Unit (Sea Port) Chennai v. Athishtarajan, reported in CDJ 2017 MHC 2981.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the respondent had established her case before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, it had dismissed the petition preferred by her. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. Finding that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur acted in a biased manner, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu made over the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Alandur with the direction decide the case on merits after giving opportunities to both parties. The learned counsel would submit that the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the remand order, however, she will co-operate the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned for fresh disposal of the case.

19. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioners and finding that the husband and in-laws have not even appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, the learned Principal Sessions Judge finds some valid force in the appeal and interfered in the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.

20. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur has passed the order without hearing the petitioners, the learned Principal Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Judicial Magistrate. Finding that remanding the matter once again to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, may lead to further allegations and inconvenience to the learned Magistrate concerned, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu made over the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Alandur to decide the case on merits. The said approach adopted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge appears to be fair and this Court don't want to interfere with the same.