HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3319 OF 2008 Dated 23-03-2011 Between: Yeddula Prema Kumar and 4 others. ……..Appellants And: The State of A.P., rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3319 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet, Kadapa District. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioners for an offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was registered as Crime No.126 of 2006 by the Rajahmundry Urban Police Station. Subsequently he has filed the present Domestic Violence Case No.1 of 2008 alleging that the marriage between the first petitioner and the 2nd respondent has performed on 24.10.2004 at Rajampet in Kadapa District and at the time of marriage, 2nd respondent presented Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, 20 tulas of gold and other articles as dowry and the 2nd respondent is working as Teacher in Mandal Praja Parishad School, Reddipalli, Pullampet Mandal and after her marriage, she joined the matrimonial house at Ram Nagar colony, Chittor and the petitioner and his brother’s wife and his sisters were residing there and her parents-in-law are demanding now and then to pay the additional dowry and the 1st respondent is working as Secondary Grade Teacher at Puttur and got transferred to Kuppam and presently working at Kuppam. According to her, she was thrown away from the matrimonial house and demanding for divorce. The petitioner’s counsel pleaded that when the crime was already registered on the same aligation the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act) for the same allegations is not maintainable. He further pleaded that the 2nd respondent is residing separately by working as teacher in Mandal Praja Parishad School, Reddipalli, Pullampet Mandal and the petitioners 2 and 4 are living separately at Kuppam and Bangalore respectively and the petitioners 3 and 5 never lived with the 1st petitioner and they are residing separately at Chittoor and the complaint is filed by impleading by all the family members to prevail upon the first petitioner to bring him to terms. As per the proforma application made under the Act, the complainant is seeking for protection under Section 18 of the Act, for maintenance under Section 20 of the Act and for protection of her property from alienation and also for compensation for physical and mental harassment. As per the allegations made in the complaint, she is residing in Reddipalli, Pullampet Mandal, and working as teacher and the 1st petitioner is residing in Kuppam and working as a teacher and his mother-in-law is residing in Ram Nagar colony, Chittor and the brother and sister-in-law of the 1st petitioner used to visit their house now and then and according to her after 10 days of the marriage, they started harassing her for getting additional dowry and she was driven out of the house and demanding for divorce. Since the petitioner seeking for protection and granting of maintenance and from alienation of her properties and compensation for both physical and mental harassment, she can claim only against her husband but not against his family members as they were not residing with the 1st petitioner who is her husband and admittedly the complainant is also not residing with her husband and she is working as a teacher at Reddipalli and residing there and the 1st petitioner is now residing at Kuppam. The petitioner’s brother-in-law and sister-in-law are also not residing at Kuppam and now residing at Bangalore. Since they are residing at difference places, the allegation that they are harassing for getting of additional dowry and driven her out of the house immediately after 10 days of the marriage does not arise. As already observed above under the Act, the orders can be passed only against the husband and not against the family members of the husband. Simply because a crime was already registered under Section 498-A IPC, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2008, as the reliefs claimed under the Act are different from the above said crime. Since the petitioners 2 to 5 are not residing with the first petitioner who is the husband of the complainant, no reliefs can be granted against them and hence I hold that the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled for quashing of the complaint against them. Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet, Kadapa District are quashed only against the petitioners 2 to 5 and the proceedings against the petitioner No.1 shall go on. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date:23.03.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3319 OF 2008 Dated 23-03-2011 Gk.