Kerala High Court
Pms Imbichy Koya Thangal vs Saudha Beevi on 11 February, 2025
2025:KER:16343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1034 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2024 IN Crl.A NO.10 OF
2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
MANJERI / III ADDITIONAL MACT, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER DATED 23.12.2023 IN MC NO.28 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA.
REVISION PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY:
MUTHUKOYA THANGAL,
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE ABDULLA KOYA THANGAL, PANAKKADU VEEDU,
PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679321.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ANAND
SRI.AMEER SALIM
RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 AND STATE:
1 SAUDHA BEEVI
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O PMS SAYYID MOHAMMED KOYAKKUTTY THANGAL,
KARUVAN THIRUTHI HOUSE, NELLIKKUTH POST,
PAYYANAD VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL
HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI POST, PUZHAKKATTIRI
VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
2 HAMNA IMBICHY KOYA THANGAL
AGED 20 YEARS
D/O PMS IMBICHIKOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL
HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI POST, PUZHAKKATTIRI
VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
2 2025:KER:16343
3 PMS IMBICHIKOYA THANGAL
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA KOYA THANGAL,PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL
HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI POST, PUZHAKKATTIRI
VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
4 PMS POOKKOYA THANGAL
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA KOYA THANGAL,PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL
HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI POST, PUZHAKKATTIRI
VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
5 RAHOOF THANGAL
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O JAFAR KOYA THANGAL,PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE,
PUZHAKKATTIRI POST, PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679321
6 SAHIRA BEEVI
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O JAFAR KOYA THANGAL,PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE,
PUZHAKKATTIRI POST, PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679321
7 JAFAR KOYA THANGAL
AGED 64 YEARS
PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI POST,
PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
8 V P SHAREEFA
W/O PMS IMBICHI KOYA THANGAL,PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL
HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI POST, PUZHAKKATTIRI
VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
9 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS. FOR R1 & R2
SIDHARTH O.
SUSANTH SHAJI
ALBIN A. JOSEPH
NEKHA VARGHESE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.02.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.779/2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
3 2025:KER:16343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 779 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.10 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, MANJERI ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2023 IN MC NO.28 OF 2023 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PERINTHALMANNA.
REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1-6/REPONDENTS
1 PMS IMBICHY KOYA THANGAL
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL (H),
PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
2 PMS POOKKOYA THANGAL
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL (H),
PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
3 RAHOOF THANGAL
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O JAFAR KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL (H),
PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
4 SAHIRA BEEVI
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O JAFAR KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL (H),
PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
5 JAFAR KOYA THANGAL
AGED 64 YEARS
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
4 2025:KER:16343
S/O LATE MULLA KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL
(H), PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
6 V.P. SHAREEFA
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O PMS IMBICHY KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL
(H), PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
BY ADVS.
K.SHIBILI NAHA
HUSSAIN KOYA VALIYAVEEDAKATH
A.LOWSY
SRINATH C.V.
GAYATHRI RAJAGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS & STATE:
1 SAUDHA BEEVI
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O PMS SAYYID MOHAMMED KOYAKUTTY THANGAL,
KARUVAN THIRUTHI (H) NELLIKKUTH P.O., PAYYANAD
VILLAGE,ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 676122. NOW
RESIDING AT PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL (H), PUZHAKKATTIRI
P.O., PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA
TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
2 HAMNA IMBICHY KOYA THANGAL
AGED 20 YEARS
D/O PMS IMBICHY KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL
(H), PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
BY ADVS. FOR R & R2
SIDHARTH O.
SUSANTH SHAJI
ALBIN A. JOSEPH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.02.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.
No.1034/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
5 2025:KER:16343
C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
=====================================
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
=====================================
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2025
ORDER
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.779 of 2024 is carried by the
1st petitioner/husband along with others, challenging
the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.10 of 2024 of the
Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. Crl. Rev. Pet.
No.1034 of 2024 is preferred by an alleged stranger
(brother of the 1st revision petitioner in Crl. Rev.
Pet. No.779 of 2024), who purchased the alleged shared
household. Leave was sought for to challenge the same
judgment in the Appeal afore-referred, which was
granted and accordingly, he also challenges the
judgment in the said Crl. Appeal, bearing no.10 of
2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners, as also, the learned counsel for the
respondents. Perused the records.
3. Before adverting to the arguments advanced, it is
necessary to take note of the course of legal
2025:KER:16343
proceedings, which culminated in the impugned
judgment. The respondents herein preferred M.C. No.28
of 2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Perinthalmanna, seeking various reliefs in
terms of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act. Crl.M.P. No.2087 of 2023 was also filed
seeking various interim reliefs, including a
residence Order in the shared household, a house
bearing No.VII/659 of Puzhakkattri Grama Panchayat.
4. Except the relief of residence order, other
reliefs sought for were granted by the learned
Magistrate, as per Order dated 23.12.2023. The
primary reason for refusing the said relief is
contained in paragraph No.9 of the Order, wherein the
learned Magistrate took stock of a report of domestic
enquiry conducted by the Women Protection Officer.
The report speaks of an alleged illicit relationship
between the first respondent and her son-in-law,
which, according to the Protection Officer, is the
root cause of all problems. On the strength of such
report, the learned Magistrate found that the
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
7 2025:KER:16343
bonafides of the 1st respondent/wife is at stake, and
the veracity of her claims will have to be
established in trial. However, the domestic
relationship between the 1st petitioner and 1st
respondent herein was acknowledged, on the basis of
which other reliefs were granted.
5. Challenging refusal of the residence order,
Crl.A.No.10 of 2024 was filed by respondents 1 and 2
before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. By
the impugned judgment, the appeal was allowed and the
relief for residence order was also allowed. The
learned Sessions Judge found that, it is quite
unjustified to come to a conclusion based on the
report of the Women Protection Officer that there was
an illicit relationship between the 1st respondent and
her son-in-law, which can be decided only after
trial. The learned Sessions Judge took stock of the
fact that there has been a domestic relationship
between the 1st petitioner/husband and the 1st
respondent/wife and that they were residing in the
shared household. To arrive at the latter part of the
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
8 2025:KER:16343
above finding, learned Sessions Judge relied on the
report of the Women Protection Officer, which depicts
the presence of the respondents at the time of her
visit to the shared household. Instances of domestic
violence have already been found by the learned
Magistrate, which was not under challenge before the
learned Sessions Judge. On such circumstances, any
attempt to oust the 1st respondent/wife from the house
is liable to be prevented, especially in view of the
explanation to Section 3 of the Domestic Violence
Act, was the finding of the learned Sessions Judge.
Accordingly, that part of the Order of the learned
Magistrate, which refused the residence Order, was
interfered with and relief granted by allowing a
residence Order as well.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner first canvassed
the proposition that the marital tie between the 1st
petitioner and the 1st respondent has been severed by
the pronouncement of Talaq on 04.03.2022, whereafter,
the 1st respondent has left the matrimonial house. The
contention raised is that, once the matrimonial tie
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
9 2025:KER:16343
is severed, the former wife is not entitled to any
protective residence Order in the erstwhile shared
household. In support of the same the learned counsel
relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in
Ramachandra Warrior v. Jayasree and Another [2021(2)
KHC 504], and also on the judgment of a learned
Single Judge in Jayasree v. Indrapalan [2024 (4) KHC
474]. More or less on the same point, the learned
counsel relied upon a judgment of another learned
Single Judge in Sudheer D. v. Anusha R. Nair [2025
(1) KHC 329], wherein it was held that a divorced
wife is not entitled to the benefit of a residence
Order after divorce.
7. The second point canvassed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that, the property, where the
shared household is situated, was sold to the
revision petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.1034 of 2024
on 15.03.2023. The same was preceded by an agreement
dated 20.01.2022. The instant M.C was filed only on
29.03.2023, wherefore, the 1st respondent/wife is
admittedly not residing in the shared household, as
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
10 2025:KER:16343
on the date of the institution of the case. She is,
therefore, not entitled to a residence Order as
claimed for. The learned counsel would also hasten to
add that there was no domestic relationship between
the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent after
04.03.2022, namely the date of pronouncement of
talaq. In the absence of a domestic relationship, the
1st respondent/wife is not entitled to any other
relief, whatsoever, is the submission made.
8. Thirdly, learned counsel for the petitioner
canvassed that, the learned Sessions Judge had given
a myopic interpretation to the definition of domestic
violence under Section 3 of the Act, which resulted
in extreme injustice to a stranger, who purchased the
property, much before the initiation of the
proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. On such
premise, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.779 of 2024 seeks to
set aside the impugned judgment of the Sessions
Court, Manjeri.
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
11 2025:KER:16343
9. Toeing in line with the above submission, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.
Rev. Pet. No.1034 of 2024 would submit that he took
the possession of the property on 15.03.2023 itself,
on which date, the 1st respondent/wife is not residing
in the shared household. On 02.04.2023, based on an
interim order passed (Annexure-C), respondents 1 and
2, aided by the SHO concerned, entered the shared
household. They have vacated the same, pursuant to
the refusal of the residence Order by the learned
Magistrate. Again, they came back on 20.07.2024,
after the impugned Annexure-E judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge. According to the learned counsel, the
revision petitioner herein is a bonafide purchaser
for valuable consideration and the inter-necine
disputes between the 1st petitioner/husband and the
1st respondent/wife cannot impact or impinge his
rights under a valid sale deed. It was also pointed
out that a suit has been instituted before the
Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna as O.S. No.208 of 2024,
seeking to evict the respondents herein from the
shared household.
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
12 2025:KER:16343
10. Refuting to the above contentions, the learned
counsel for the respondents would first invite the
attention of this Court to the definition of a
'shared household' as per Section 2(s), to point out
that it is enough that the 1st respondent wife had
lived in domestic relationship, at the household, at
any stage, either singly or along with the
respondent. It was also pointed out that, in a given
case where there was no physical residence by the
wife, still the household will become a shared
household, provided the person aggrieved has a right,
title, interest or equity over the property where the
shared household is situated. Accordingly, a mere
right to reside in her husband's property is enough
to make the household a shared one, in terms of the
definition, is the argument raised. On Talaq, the
learned counsel would deny the claim of the revision
petitioner/husband. It was submitted that there was
no such Talaq; at any rate, no Talaq in terms of law.
As an alternative argument, it was pointed out that
after the introduction of the Muslim Women
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
13 2025:KER:16343
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which
has been given retrospective effect from 19.09.2018,
the pronouncement of Talaq is void and illegal,
besides attracting penal consequences. Learned
counsel relied upon a three-judges bench decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v.
Sneha Ahuja [2020 (5) KHC 496], to point out that the
law laid down in S.R. Batra and Another v. Taruna
Batra [2007 (1) KHC 536], that a claim under Section
17(1) for residence in a shared household is possible
only in a case where the house belongs or taken on
rent by the husband or in a case where the house
belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a
member, has been held bad law (See paragraph No.84 in
this regard). Based on the said decision, it was
pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondents that, the household, will be a shared
household even if it belongs to a third person. Say
for example, a premises, which has been taken on
rent, provided the respondent/wife had either resided
in that shared household at some point of time or had
a right to reside there. Another judgment of the
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
14 2025:KER:16343
Hon'ble Supreme Court is pressed into service by the
counsel for the respondent, titled Prabha Tyagi v.
Kamlesh Devi [2022 KHC OnLine 6542], where the
question raised was whether the domestic relationship
should be subsisting to seek a relief under Section
17 of the Domestic Violence Act. It was also
considered as to whether the aggrieved person should
have actually lived or resided with respondent at the
time of making the allegations. Both were answered in
the negative, in paragraph No.52. It was held that
the residence of the wife with the person against
whom allegations have been levelled at the time of
commission of violence, is not mandatory, when there
is a relationship by consanguinity, marriage or a
relationship in the nature of marriage. It was also
held that there should be a subsisting domestic
relation between the aggrieved person and the
respondent, which does not, however, mean that at the
time of filing the application by an aggrieved
person, the domestic relationship should be
subsisting. It is enough that they have so lived at
any point of time, or had the right to live, and has
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
15 2025:KER:16343
been subjected to domestic violence. Based on the
said judgment, it was argued by the learned counsel
that, the absence of domestic relationship, now
canvassed by the revision petitioners, cannot be of
any moment, inasmuch as the marriage is admitted and
the severance thereof is not even prima facie
established. In this regard, the learned counsel
would specifically point out the findings of the
learned Magistrate that the claim of severance of
matrimonial tie by pronouncement of talaq has not
been substantiated by any material, whatsoever, on
behalf of the revision petitioners herein.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties, this Court finds no tangible
ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge. This Court specifically notice that
the Orders were passed at the initial stage of the
proceedings. The M.C is still pending. The original
Order was passed in CMP No.2087 of 2023 in the
pending M.C. The state of affairs, which prevailed as
on the date of the institution of the case, has to be
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
16 2025:KER:16343
reckoned for the purpose of interim reliefs. It has
been reported by the Women Protection Officer that
she found the respondents (wife and daughter) in the
shared household, when she paid a visit. This has
been taken stock of by both the learned Magistrate
and the Sessions Judge. The learned Magistrate
refused the relief of residence Order only on the
basis of the enquiry report of the Women Protection
Officer, which suggests that the 1st respondent wife
is having an illicit relation with her son-in-law.
This is interfered with by the learned Sessions Judge
by holding that, it is too premature to find so,
without any supporting evidence, except the report of
the Women Protection Officer. It was found that the
daughter of the 1st respondent/wife is married and
they are living together along with the son-in-law,
which cannot, however, lead to any remote inference
that there is an illicit relationship between the 1 st
respondent and her son-in-law. This finding of the
learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any
interference at this stage, the opinion of this
Court, especially in the absence of any cogent
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
17 2025:KER:16343
evidence. To allege an adulterous relationship
against a person is a serious affair and the same has
to be done with all seriousness it deserves. At any
rate, such an adulterous relation cannot be taken
stock of, in the absence of cogent material evidence
to refuse a relief to the 1st respondent, especially
when domestic relationship by virtue of the marriage
between herself and the 1st petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.
No.779 of 2024 is admitted.
12. Coming to the claim of severance of matrimonial
tie based on pronouncement of talaq, this Court can
only endorse the findings of the learned Magistrate
to the effect that no supporting material,
whatsoever, has been produced by the 1st
petitioner/husband herein. It was argued by the
learned counsel for the 1st petitioner that, the
severance of matrimonial tie by pronouncement of
talaq was not disputed by the 1st respondent herein.
It may be true, that there is no pleading
specifically denying the claim based on talaq.
However, the same was disputed at the very first
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
18 2025:KER:16343
instance before the learned Magistrate itself, which
is why the learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion
that the claim is not supported by any evidence,
whatsoever. Non-traverse of a pleading in an M.C
proceeding in the counter cannot be fatal,
especially when the parties are only at the initial
stage of the proceedings, that is to say, at the
stage of securing interim Orders. The said contention
will stand repelled therefore.
13. It could thus be seen that the marriage is
admitted and there has been a domestic relation
between the 1st petitioner/husband and the 1st
respondent/wife. The definition given to a shared
household in terms of Section 2(s) would not persuade
this Court to hold that the residence in question was
not a shared household, in so far as the 1 st
respondent/wife is concerned. It is not disputed
before this Court that the 1st respondent and the 1st
petitioner had lived together as husband and wife in
that residential building, at least upto
pronouncement of talaq on 04.03.2022. This answers
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
19 2025:KER:16343
the requirement of the building being a shared
household. Once the domestic relationship and the
residence in the shared household is prima facie
established, that cannot be a rhyme or reason to
refuse the relief of a residential Order. This Court,
therefore, cannot find any infirmity of legality with
respect to the judgment impugned.
14. Coming to Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1034 of 2024, this
Court finds that the purchaser of the property cannot
espouse a better case than what the 1st
petitioner/husband could espouse. It is important to
note that the revision petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet.
No.1034 of 2024 is not a complete stranger, but the
direct brother of the 1st petitioner/husband himself.
Even going by the very showing made by the 1 st
petitioner/husband, talaq was pronounced on
04.03.2022. The revision petitioner was quite aware
of the disputes and dissensions between the 1st
petitioner/husband and 1st respondent/wife. It was
while so that he entered into an agreement for sale,
which culminated in a sale deed on 15.03.2023. At any
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
20 2025:KER:16343
rate, he cannot seek annulment of the impugned
judgment claiming and projecting himself as a
bonafide purchaser.
15. In the result, both these criminal revision
petitions fail, and the same would stand dismissed.
16. It is clarified that all the findings and
observations made in this common Order is only for
the purpose of this revision, and both the M.C., as
also, the suit O.S. No. 208 of 2024, will be
considered by the respective courts in accordance
with law, untrammeled by any of the observations
contained herein. There will be a direction to the
learned Magistrate to expedite the proceedings in the
subject M.C. to the extent possible.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
mea
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos.779 & 1034 of 2024
21 2025:KER:16343
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1034/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT FOR
SALE OF 16.29 ARES OF LAND ALONG WITH
THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN SY. NO: 27/1-
2 IN PUZHAKKATTIRI VILLAGE, FROM
REVISION PETIITONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 20.01.2022
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO:
1131/2023 DATED 15.03.2023 OF
MAKKARAPARAMBU SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CMP
NO: 2087/2023 IN M C NO: 28/2023 DATED
29.03.2023 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT -I, PERINTHALMANNA
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO:
2087/2023 IN MC 28/2023 DATED
23.12.2023 OF JFCM-I, PERINTHALMANNA
Annexure E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-III, MANJERI
DATED 11.06.2024 IN CRL. APPEAL NO:
10/2024.
