[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rohini vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2026
2026:KER:8906
Crl.M.C.No.7476/2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7476 OF 2023
CRIME NO.1126/2018 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
TO QUASH FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.5296 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHENGANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 ROHINI, AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. RAVEENDRAN KAVILATHU VEEDU, VENMONY KIZHAKKUM MURI
VENMONY.P.O., ALAPPUZHA ., PIN - 689509
2 RANI, AGED 36 YEARS
W/O. BIJU MANI BHAVAN, CHERUKOL.P.O., KARASHMA MURI
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA ., PIN - 690104
3 BIJU, AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. VISWANATHAN MANI BHAVAN, CHERUKOL.P.O., KARASHMA
MURI MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA ., PIN - 690104
4 RAJI, AGED 36 YEARS
W/O. MADHU KAVILATHU VEEDU, VENMONY KIZHAKKUM MURI
VENMONY.P.O., ALAPPUZHA ., PIN - 689509
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.N.SASI
SHRI.HARISHANKAR S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
AGED 41 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VENMONY POLICE STATION, VENMONY.P.O. ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
689509
2026:KER:8906
Crl.M.C.No.7476/2023 2
3 SEENA.V, AGED 42 YEARS
SINDHU BHAVAN, PALLICKAL EAST MURI THEKKEKARA.P.O.,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 690107
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADV.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.01.2026, THE COURT ON 03.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8906
Crl.M.C.No.7476/2023 3
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C No.5296/2019 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur have filed this petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the aforesaid
case.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners wilfully violated
the protection order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,
Chengannur in M.C No.116/2011 by locking the shared household of the
de facto complainant with another lock at about 12:00 noon on
19.10.2018 and thereby disturbing the residence of the de facto
complainant in that house. Thus, the petitioners are alleged to have
committed the offence punishable under Section 31(1) of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. In the present petition, the petitioners would contend that
they are totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against
them. According to the petitioners, the house claimed by the de facto
complainant cannot be termed as the shared household belonging to her.
2026:KER:8906
Crl.M.C.No.7476/2023 4
Thus, it is contended that the petitioners have not committed any offence
as alleged by the prosecution.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel for the third respondent/de facto complainant, and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 reads as follows:
"31. Penalty for breach of protection order by
respondent.--(1) A breach of protection order, or of an
interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an
offence under this Act and shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty
thousand rupees, or with both."
6. Though the aforesaid provision deals with the breach of a
protection order or an interim protection order, Rule 15(7) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 would make it
clear that any resistance to the enforcement of the orders of the Court
under the Act by the respondent or any other person purportedly acting
on his behalf shall be deemed to be a breach of protection order or an
interim protection order covered under the Act. In view of the aforesaid
2026:KER:8906
Crl.M.C.No.7476/2023 5
provision of law, the violation of the order passed by the learned
Magistrate restraining the petitioners herein from dispossessing the de
facto complainant from the shared household or disturbing her
possession in the above shared household would definitely amount to an
offence punishable under Section 31(1) of the PWDV Act.
7. On going through the final report and the accompanying
records relied on by the prosecution, it is seen that the investigating
agency had garnered sufficient materials to bring home the aforesaid
offence alleged against the petitioners. In addition to the de facto
complainant, CW2 and CW3 are cited in the final report to establish the
criminal acts attributed against the petitioners. It is not possible for this
Court to analyse the aforesaid evidence in a proceeding under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that no offence
has been brought out against them, is totally unsustainable.
8. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioners pointed out that the order passed by the learned Magistrate
restraining them from interfering with the possession of the de facto
complainant over the shared household, was already stayed by this Court
vide Annexures A1 and A2 orders, and hence the violation of the
2026:KER:8906
Crl.M.C.No.7476/2023 6
aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate would not amount to an
offence. There is absolutely no basis for the above argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioners since Annexures A1 and A2 orders of
this Court are dated 07.12.2018 and 28.01.2020 respectively, whereas the
incident involved in this crime took place on 19.10.2018. Thus, it is clear
that at the time when the petitioners violated the order of the learned
Magistrate, there was no stay of proceedings in force. In that view of the
matter, it cannot be said that Annexures A1 and A2 orders of this Court
would defeat the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners.
9. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the Family Court, Mavelikkara, by its judgment dated
29.10.2014 in O.S No.1099/2013 had rejected the claim of the de facto
complainant over one half share of the house and landed property settled
in favour of her husband, and hence she is not entitled to claim any right
over the house in respect of which the learned Magistrate had passed the
order. The argument in the above regard is prima facie unsustainable
since the judgment of the Family Court in the aforesaid case, insofar as it
relates to the above mentioned settlement deed, had been set aside by a
Division Bench of this Court in Mat.A No.1097/2014. That apart, the right
of the de facto complainant over the shared household remains
2026:KER:8906
Crl.M.C.No.7476/2023 7
unaffected though it is contended that the aforesaid house belonged to
the first petitioner.
10. It has to be stated here that the legality and correctness of
the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be challenged by the
petitioners in a criminal prosecution launched against them for the
violation of the said order. The aforesaid challenges against the order of
the Magistrate could be raised only in accordance with law before the
appropriate forums provided for the same. As far as the criminal
prosecution in C.C No.5296/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur is concerned, the only question to be
looked into is whether the petitioners wilfully violated the order passed by
the learned Magistrate against disturbing the possession of the de facto
complainant over the shared household. Thus, it has to be stated that
there is absolutely no basis for the present petition filed by the petitioners
challenging the criminal prosecution in the aforesaid case.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(Sd-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
2026:KER:8906
Crl.M.C.No.7476/2023 8
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 7476 OF 2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN CRLRP
NO.1614/2018 DATED 07-12-2018
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN CRLRP
NO.1614/2018 DATED 28-01-2020
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. (OTHERS)
NO.1099/2013 DATED 29-10-2014 OF FAMILY
COURT, MAVELIKKARA
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-12-2006
OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 2007 (1)
KHC 536
Annexure A5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.
1126/2018 DATED 11-12-2018 OF VENMONY POLICE
STATION
Annexure A6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
C.C. NO.5296/2019, OF JFCM-I CHENGANNUR DATED
30-09-2019
