LAWS(KAR)-2009-8-48

NAYANAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On August 12, 2009
NAYANAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.4.2009 in Crl. RP 156/2008 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur and also the proceedings in Crl. Misc. 77/08 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bijapur.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent claiming to be the wife of the petitioner approached the District Legal Services Authority seeking the assistance of the said authority to bring together the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner as they are the wife and husband and following the husband having gone out of the company of the 2nd respondent, she made such a request.

(3.) Pursuant to the said request made by the 2nd respondent, District Legal Services Authority took up the matter before Lok Adalath and both the petitioner and 2nd respondent were present and after perusing the documents produced by the 2nd respondent and also on being not successful despite a long deliberation, in bringing the parties to arrive at a compromise, the District Legal Services Authority thought it fit to refer the matter back to the jurisdictional Magistrate for doing the needful in accordance with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act 2005). On receipt of the said order from the District Legal Services Authority, Learned Magistrate of the Trial Court in Crl. Misc. 77/2008 directed notice to be issued to both the parties. This order of the Learned Magistrate was questioned before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Crl. Revision Petition No. 156/2008 and the Learned Judge of the said Court held that the order of the Trial Court does not call for interference except in regard to some technical aspects inasmuch as issuing notice to the State as a party was not found to be of any necessity and consequently Learned Sessions Judge directed to array only the 2nd respondent and the present petitioner as the parties by deleting the State from the proceedings. It is this order of the Learned Sessions Judge that is called in question.