2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 82438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JAISON – Appellant
Versus
AMMU – Respondent
Crl.MC 4346/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 4346 OF 2016 CRIME NO.79/2016 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.34 OF 2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT ,IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JAISON AGED 43 YEARS, S/O SANI, THEKKEKARA KORETH HOUSE, PULLUR DESOM, PULLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.BINU B.SAMUEL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 AMMU AGED 8 YEARS, D/O RASNA, KOKKADAN HOUSE, PUTHUKADU DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 301.
REPRESENTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT SMT RASNA WHO IS THE MOTHER AND GUARDIAN,AS PER ORDER DATED
29/07/2016 IN CRL MA NO 7634/2016
2 APPU J KORETH AGED 6 YEARS, S/O RASNA, KOKKADAN HOUSE, PUTHUKADU DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 301.
REPRESENTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT SMT RASNA WHO IS THE MOTHER AND GUARDIAN,AS PER ORDER DATED
29/07/2016 IN CRL MA NO 7634/2016
3 RASNA AGED 35 YEARS, D/O JOSEPH, KOKKADAN HOUSE, PUTHUKADU DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 301.
4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 680 301.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CRL.MC No.4346 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2024
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.P.No.34/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 23 and 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short “the J.J Act, 2000”).
2. The prosecution case is that, on 05.03.2016 at about 11.30 am, the petitioner had assaulted respondents 1 and 2 from the interaction room of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda by twisting the left hand of the 1st respondent and by slapping her on the left hand. It is also alleged that the petitioner had scratched the right shoulder and below portion of the chest of the 2nd respondent and thereby committed the offences. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 23 of the J.J Act, 2000 is not attracted. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents 1 and 2 are the children of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is his wife. The petitioner was working in the United States as IT professional and he came back with his family to Kerala during 2010. Thereafter, some disputes arose between them. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent have been living separately for about 5 years and several cases are pending between them before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda. The respondents 1 and 2 are living along with the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed a case for getting the custody of respondents 1 and 2 before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda and is pending as GOP No.907/2013. As per the interim order in the above case, the petitioner was granted permission to interact with the 1st and 2nd respondents on all working Saturdays from 10 am to 12 noon under the supervision of the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda. Annexure A4 is the order. It is the case of the petitioner that the said room is monitored by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court and so many other parents and children also were present. It is the case of the petitio