SEEMA AND ORS. Vs. PRAMILA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an application filed by the respondents, under S.125 of Cr.P.C. Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, having registered the Criminal Misc. Petition and issued notice to these petitioners, this petition was filed, under S.482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the said proceeding.

(2.) The respondents herein, claiming to be the wife and children of P.Ravishankar, who died on 31.12.2008, contend that the petitioners herein, are the illegitimate children of P.Ravishankar, born through Smt.Prameela and are in possession and enjoyment of property belonging to P. Ravishankar, situated at No.4/1, New No.5, Ramaswamy Street, Alwar Pet, Chennai - 18. According to the respondents, the said property is yielding an income of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and that they were evicted/thrown out by use of force. The respondents filed Crl.Misc.Petition No.352/2013, under S.125 Cr.P.C., before the Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC., Devanahalli, to direct payment of Rs. 5,000/- each to them, i.e., in all Rs. 15,000/- per month for their maintenance. Prior to filing of the said petition, the respondents having made the demand through a legal notice dated 25.09.2012, the petitioners got sent a reply dated 20.11.2012, denying the relationship and also claiming that the said property as belonging to them.

(3.) Sri. N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned advocate, contended that the petition filed under S.125 of Cr.P.C., being not maintainable and learned Magistrate having no jurisdiction, has acted illegally in registering the case and issuing the notice. He submitted that there being no relationship between the parties, filing of the petition under S.125, Cr.P.C., being abuse of process of law, learned Magistrate without any application of mind has mechanically registered the case and ordered for issuing of notice. He further submitted that the petitioners being the residents of Chennai, would suffer undue hardship to attend the case filed before the JMFC., Devanahalli. Learned counsel contended that there being abuse of process of law by the respondents, in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent unnecessary harassment, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.