Judgment :- 1. I have a strange order before me, undesirable in its effect, unusual in its character and disastrous in its consequences The Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Karunagappaly, has treated a young lady, 23 years old, as a property, in the order passed by him, which is sought to be quashed in this petition. 2. The petitioner is one Sebastian. The lady in question is Gouri Amma Santhamma. On information furnished by one Narayana Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Karunagappally Police registered a crime, Crime No. 142 of 1976, against the petitioner under S.366, 369, 498, 461 and 386 IPC. The information was lodged at 7.00 P. M. on 28 71976. The accusation in the said complaint was that his wife, Lakshmikutty Amma, two daughters, Vanaja and Jalaja, and his niece, the lady in question, had eloped with the petitioner at at about 12 O'clock on 22 7 1976. It is further alleged that these persons carried ornaments and cash. 3. The Sub-Inspector, Karunagappally, submitted a report before the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Karunagappally, stating that the petitioner was arrested on 29 -71976 at 6.00 P. M. and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, II Class. Ernakulam, with the above-mentioned persons. As per the orders of the Ernakulam Magistrate, the petitioner was produced before the Court below. The complainant's wife, his daughters and Santhamma were also produced before the Magistrate. The petitioner was granted interim bail. The 2nd respondent, Sri A. G Kumar, said to be a student, filed an application marked as Ext. P-1, requesting the Magistrate to entrust the lady to him on "moounasthanam" On that petition, the Magistrate passed the following order "The lady is entrusted to the Moonnamsthanam on bond for Rs. 1000 with two solvent sureties in the like sum by each." It is averred in the petition that the 2nd respondent executed a receipt before the Karunagappally Police station that he has received Santhamma from the police station. A copy of the receipt is also produced. The complainant, Balakrishna Pillai, appears to have executed similar receipts before the police to take custody of his wife and children. 4. The petitioner submits that Santhamma is his wife and that they were living as husband and wife for more than one year. They belong to two different communities. Since their marriage was not solemnised they got a registered document executed before the Additional Sub-Registrar, Kottayam. 4. The petitioner submits that Santhamma is his wife and that they were living as husband and wife for more than one year. They belong to two different communities. Since their marriage was not solemnised they got a registered document executed before the Additional Sub-Registrar, Kottayam. They had to go to Kottayam since they apprehended some tension if the same was done at Karunagappally. Lakshmikutty Amma is witness No.1 in the said document. When the police arrested the petitioner, they took the original of this document also with them. 5. It is the order directing the lady to be entrusted to the 2nd respondent on "moonnamsthanam" that is sought to be quashed in this petition. 6. Along with the main petition, there was an application to direct the 2nd respondent to produce the lady before this Court. I directed him to produce her on 30 81976 at 10-30 a. m. The notice was returned originally unserved. Later a notice was again issued through the Superintendent of Police, Quilon. The notice was accepted by the 2nd respondent, which is evident from the records available with the State Prosecutor. There is an endorsement dated 27 81976 to the effect that the 2nd respondent received the notice and put bis signature on that day. However he has not chosen to appear before me. 7. The lady appeared before me, along with her elder brother. The petitioner also was present. I directed the Deputy Registrar to question the lady to as certain her wishes. What she stated has been recorded by him, which reads as follows: "She says she came to-day to Court in the company of her brother Chellappan Pillai from her house where her mother is laid up now he also says she has married Sebastian. She tells me that she now wants to go with her brother to her own house where her mother is laid up. She also adds that after her mother recovers from her illness, she would go with Sebastian." At 1.45 P. M. I called Santhamma, her elder brother and the petitioner in open Court. I directed her to go with her elder brother to her house. I told the petitioner also as to what she stated before the Deputy Registrar. All the three appeared to be satisfied and they went together. 8. I directed her to go with her elder brother to her house. I told the petitioner also as to what she stated before the Deputy Registrar. All the three appeared to be satisfied and they went together. 8. Now coming to the order, I have no hesitation in observing that the order passed is clearly an abuse of process of court. The lady was not an accused in the case Nor is she a property involved in the case. Under what provision of law did the Magistrate pass the order impugned, is beyond one's comprehension. Under what circumstances the 2nd respondent filed Ext. P-1 petition is not discernible from the records. The order is not a speaking order. It is cryptic and devoid of any material for a superior Court to adjudge its propriety or regularity. The order does not even indicate that the 2nd respondent and the sureties had to execute a bond to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. Everything has been done in a most unsatisfactory manner and the order is ex facie illegal. The Magistrate should have realised the dangerous consequences of entrusting a young lady to a stranger. Neither the petitioner's counsel nor the State Prosecutor was able to tell me as to what would have influenced the Magistrate in passing this order. All that they could say was that the 2nd respondent and the girl belonged to the same community. The Magistrate should have had due consideration to the fact that he was dealing with a young lady, who is said to have married the petitioner. I would have been happy if the Magistrate had allowed the lady to go wherever she wanted. I would have been happier if the Magistrate had permitted her to go with the petitioner who claims to be her husband and whom she owns as her husband in this Court. No questions appear to have been put to the lady about her willingness. I am constrained to observe that the Magistrate had abdicated his functions and arrogated to himself an authority he did not have If he thought that he could deal with the lady as a property involved in a crime, he was grossly mistaken. There is something more than that meets the eye. Suffice it to say, that there could not be a better case under S.482 Cr. P.C. for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. There is something more than that meets the eye. Suffice it to say, that there could not be a better case under S.482 Cr. P.C. for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. The execution of Ext. P-2 receipt also is equally reprehensible. 9. The matter is grave and serious. A citizen looks to Court of law for protection A lady, young in age, and brought before Court under extraordinary circumstances like the one that we have in this case, deserves respectful treatment at the hands of the Court. The order sought to be quashed has thrown to winds respect for human dignity, sanctity of womanhood and the protective umbrella that a Court is expected to give to a woman in distress. The manner in which the 2nd respondent, with whom the lady was entrusted on "moonnasthanam", has behaved in not making himself available before this Court renders the melodrama enacted in this case more suspicious T think this is a proper case where very strong observations are necessary against the order passed by the Magistrate. But I will prefer to err on the side of judicial restraint and content myself by observing that the Magistrate will hereafter be careful in dealing with such cases. The part played by the police also is not beyond reproach. 10. In the result, the order passed by the court below is quashed as being without jurisdiction. The Crl. M. P. is allowed. Allowed.