Disposed

P.U. Ramakrishnan v. R. Yasotha

Madras HC23 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/3628/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Court of judiciary states cylinders disposed of a Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that such proceedings are civil in nature and the Magistrate is competent to decide if petitioners are necessary parties. The petitioners were directed to appear only if specifically called by the Magistrate

What did the court decide?

Crl.O.P. dismissed with a direction to the Magistrate to decide whether the petitioners are necessary parties to appear before him.

P.U. Ramakrishnan Vs R. Yasotha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.3628 of 2014

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.(MD)Nos.1&2 of 2014

1.P.U.Ramakrishnan

2.Rajeshwari

3.Leela Arokiamery

... Petitioners / Respondents

¶13

Vs.

¶14

R.Yasotha ... Respondent / Complainant

¶15

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in DVP No.36 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.Sribalaji

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed praying to call for the records in DVP No.36 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur and quash the same.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

Notice to the respondents is dispensed with, since this Court passes only a limited order, at the admission stage itself.

¶21

4.When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not responsible in a proceedings under the Protection of women from domestic violence Act., however, they are being dragged on to the Court.

¶22

The only grievance of the petitioners is that they are unnecessarily harassed. However, the proceedings under the said Act is civil in nature. The learned Magistrate is the competent authority to decide whether the petitioners are necessary parties before him. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Magistrate to decide whether the petitioners are necessary parties before him, before passing any orders. The appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the petitioners, except the first petitioner/husband of the defacto complainant, is dispensed with, unless they are so required by the Magistrate, who give specific direction to the petitioners to appear

¶23

¶24

before him, for enquiry. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur

¶29

+1cc to Mr. J.Maia roseline Advocate Sr.No. 25066 mpk AA/08.05.2014/2p- 3c/

¶30

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.3628 of 2014 23.04.2014

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.U. Ramakrishnan v. R. Yasotha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.U. Ramakrishnan v. R. Yasotha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Pattu Raj Vs the Inspector of Police

Thiruselvam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Velu Alias Sournavelu, Vs the Inspector of Police

Sankarguru Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Thirupathi Vs the Inspector of Police

T. Kalia Perumal Vs the Sub Inspector of Police