IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9552 of 2009 DATE: 27.09.2010 Between: M.Ramachandra Raju @ Ramu and others …… Petitioners And: The State rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9552 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4 are the respondents 2 to 5 in D.V.C. No.3 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District. The 1st respondent in D.V.C. who is not a petitioner herein, is husband of the 2nd respondent/aggrieved party. The petitioners are parents, brother and sister of the 2nd respondent’s husband. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent gave report to C.I.D police in Crime No.6 of 2009 making similar allegations which are contained in the Domestic Violence Case and that the said crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 I.P.C, Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 19(8) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act) and that therefore this domestic violence case is not maintainable. The police cannot register a crime under Section 19(8) of the Act. Section 19(8) of the Act empowers a Magistrate to order return of possession of Stridhana properties. It can be done only in a case instituted under Section 12 of the Act by the aggrieved person before a Magistrate. Registration of case for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 307 I.P.C and also under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is a criminal remedy which the 2nd respondent can always maintain simultaneously along with civil remedies under sections 18 to 22 of the Act before a Magistrate. Though remedies under Section 18 to 22 of the Act are civil remedies, they are enquired by a criminal Court adopting procedure prescribed by Code of Criminal Procedure. 2) In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with presence of petitioners 1 to 4 who are the respondents 2 to 5 in D.V.C. No.3 of 2009 during enquiry of the case by the lower Court, except on the date of delivery of order therein. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 27, 2010 KSH