K. Gopal Kishan Rao & 4 others v. The State of A.P & Anr.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6187 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Smt. N. Anula, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the first respondent.

The criminal petition is directed against the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, in which the present petitioners are respondents 2 to 6 and the second respondent herein is the petitioner.

The second respondent herein filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), alleging that her husband, the first respondent in the domestic violence case, was married to her on

01.05.2009 at Warangal and after the same, when she, her husband and his parents were staying together at Hyderabad, the husband and his family members harassed her for an additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- from her parents. Her husband was alleged to have beaten her, whenever she refused to bring the additional dowry from her parents, with the encouragement of his parents. She also alleged her husband to be suspecting her and to have beaten her indiscriminately on 15.07.2009 resulting in her hospitalization. The wife also alleged about the husband and his parents refusing to take her back after she left for her parents’ house from the hospital. She, therefore, claimed reliefs under Sections 18 to 20 of the Act.

The Protection Officer filed a domestic violence report before the Court involving all the six respondents and requesting for reliefs under Sections 19 to 21 of the Act.

The petitioners contend herein that there were no specific overt acts attributed to them and that no relief can be granted against them because they are residing separately. No reliefs could have been granted against them when the allegations do not constitute any offence under the statute and the second respondent filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with identical allegations against the petitioners and her husband and, hence, they desired the domestic violence case, which is an abuse of process of Court, to fail.

The point for consideration is whether the proceedings in the domestic violence case are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

Insofar as petitioners 3 to 5 are concerned, the third petitioner is the brother, the 4th petitioner is the wife of the third petitioner and the 5th petitioner is the sister of the husband. They are residing separately from the other petitioners herein and the husband of the second respondent, according to their version and even the petition filed by the second respondent showed the 5th petitioner to be a resident of Chityal, obviously not residing with other respondents to the domestic violence case. In Form-I also, petitioners 1 to 4 and the husband were shown to be residing at the same address and even assuming the same to be true, the contents of the petition by the second respondent or the domestic violence report from the Protection Officer did not even remotely refer to any involvement of petitioners 3 to 5 in the matrimonial discord between the husband and the wife. Whatever has been alleged has been only against the husband, mainly with a marginal or instigating role for the parents. Therefore, insofar as petitioners 3 to 5 are concerned, continuance of the domestic violence case would be a travesty of justice.

Insofar as the parents are concerned, the petition by the second respondent made specific allegations about the husband and his parents residing together at Hyderabad and the husband and his parents, being parties to the demands for additional dowry from the second respondent. It was alleged that the parents were encouraging the husband in his acts of physical violence against the second respondent. The truth or otherwise of such allegations is not for this Court to enquire into in the restricted jurisdiction calling for exercise of inherent powers and the fact finding enquiry can only be before the trial Court. However, the parents are advanced in age and the first petitioner is a retired employee and compelling them to attend before the trial Court on all further dates of hearing will impose avoidable physical and mental burden on them. Hence, if they make an appropriate request, their physical presence on the future dates of hearing can be dispensed with by the trial Court.

Therefore, if petitioners 1 and 2 so desire and so choose to make an appropriate request to the trial Court to dispense with their physical presence on the future dates of hearing before the Court, except when their presence is absolutely indispensable for further progress of the case, the trial Court shall positively consider such a request. Subject to the said direction, the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of petitioners 3 to 5 and is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1 and 2 and further proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, are quashed against petitioners 3 to 5 herein. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6187 of 2010 Date: 19th October, 2011 KL