K KAMALA Vs. M PARIMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the cognizance order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, in C.C.No.465 of 2008 as illegal and abuse of process of law and misuse of provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after called as 'Act").

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- THE first petitioner is the mother-in-law, the second petitioner is the sister-in-law and the third petitioner is the husband of the sister-in-law of the first respondent. THE first respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioners under the said Act. THE allegation against the first petitioner/mother-in-law is that she wrote a letter to the Secretary, L.I.C. Employees Association, Dindigul, where the first respondent is working and a second letter to the Public Relation Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-IV, Commercial Tax Office, Dindigul, where the first respondent's husband is working, with some allegations against the petitioner, under the guise of seeking for certain informations. THE only allegation as against the petitioners 2 and 3 is that the 2nd petitioner/sister-in-law had written complaint where the first petitioner/mother-in-law had put her signature. Further, on 09.05.2008 the petitioners 2 and 3 were attacked the first respondent and based on which, a complaint has been given and based on the complaint a case has been registered in 128 of 2008 which is pending on the file of the Police. Further, the first respondent claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs under the Act. THE learned Judicial Magistrate concerned has also taken cognizance of the same, as if the complainant is entitled for compensation. THE offence said to have committed by the petitioners are under Sections 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act. Based on the complaint, the 2nd respondent has forwarded it to the trial court for prosecution and a criminal case was registered in C.C.No.465 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and they were arrayed as respondents/accused. THE learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul has taken cognizance and issued summons in the said complaint. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come forward with the present Criminal Original Petition for the relief as stated supra.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit in his argument that the first respondent's husband was not included as respondent and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are liable to be proceeded under the provisions of the said Act. THE said inclusion of female members, as the relatives of the husband, as respondents, is not sustainable under Section 2(q) of the Act. He would further submit that the allegations said to have been made against the petitioners in Form-I under the Act, are not adequate, to take cognizance and on the face of it, the offence against the petitioners pertaining to the 3 days' cause of action viz., 26.04.2008, 30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 are not sustainable and admittedly, on 09.05.2008, a complaint has been already lodged before the Police, North Police Station, Dindgul Town, Dindigul, and the Police have also given the receipt in C.S.R.No.128 of 2008. Now, the very same cause of action, has been repeated here and it would amount to "double jeopardy" against the petitioners.