IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6070 of 2008 Between: Smt. Kodeboina Ratnayamma & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Smt. Kodeboina Basava Kumari & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6070 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners has represented that the first petitioner is no more, having passed away on 01.06.2011 and, therefore, the criminal petition insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, has to be recorded as abated. 3. Coming to the dispute between petitioners 2 and 3 and the first respondent in D.V.C.No.1 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, Khammam District, it is true that the deceased first petitioner filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2007, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, Khammam District, against the first respondent herein and her husband alleging that she and the second petitioner herein were not even allowed to enter into the house after the first respondent herein and her husband took possession of the house by force and trespass. She, therefore, desired that an interim protection order may be granted in favour of herself and the second petitioner against the first respondent herein and her husband and sought for other consequential reliefs. The said domestic violence case is still said to be pending, but in view of the death of the first petitioner, that also obviously has to stand abated. 4. The present D.V.C. No.1 of 2008 is claimed by petitioners 2 and 3 to be a counter blast to D.V.C.No.1 of 2007 and irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the said allegation, the material papers enclosed to the criminal petition show that specific allegations were made against the mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law about physically and mentally harassing the first respondent herein. The allegation was that they harassed the first respondent to sell Ac. 4.00 of land and bring the sale proceeds. The petitioners herein were also alleged to have demanded Adapadachu Katnam and gold ornaments as dowry. The allegations seem to be about harassing the first respondent herein in various other ways which were ticked at the appropriate entries in the prescribed proformae in the domestic violence case and reliefs sought for were in respect of an order of protection and order for residence, etc. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the domestic violence case cannot be the subject of a fact finding enquiry within the restricted scope of looking into the applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the case is a counter blast to D.V.C.No.1 of 2007 is for the trial Court to enquire into and come to a conclusion on merits. 5. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent also placed before the Court, for perusal, the report of the Commissioner in D.V.C.No.1 of 2007 in which the neighbours numbering 60 to 70 seem to have complained against the sadistic attitude of the second petitioner herein against daughters-in-law. Without expressing any opinion on the said allegations, it is suffice to conclude that as this Court is not a fact finding Court in respect of the allegations and counter allegations, the matter needs to be relegated back to the trial Court for being enquired into and decided on merits. 6. Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner is now aged about 83 years, while the third petitioner is aged about 45 years and the state of health of the second petitioner is not such as would render him fit for undergoing the ordeal of attending the Court on all dates of hearing and the third petitioner alone is looking after him at this advanced age. While the third petitioner, admittedly, is residing with her father due to some matrimonial problems, petitioners 2 and 3, therefore, requested to be permitted not to be physically present during further proceedings before the trial Court. The trial Court can definitely be requested to positively consider any request made in this behalf by petitioners 2 and 3 under the circumstances above stated. 7. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is recorded as abated in respect of the first petitioner. The Criminal Petition is dismissed insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, but the trial Court shall positively consider any request from petitioners 2 and 3 for dispensing with their presence before the Court on further dates of hearing except when their personal presence is absolutely indispensable and necessary for further proceeding with the case. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6070 of 2008 Date: 28th September, 2011 KL