IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5070 of 2010 Between: P. Muralikrishna Rao & another .. Petitioners AND Swetha Prabhakar Tripurana & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5070 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Kumari G. Sindhu, learned counsel representing Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against continuance of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.8 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, against the petitioners. 3. The complaint from the first respondent to the Protection Officer, dated 20.05.2010, resulted in the domestic violence report by the Protection Officer which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. The first respondent claimed that she was married on 04.10.2009 at Eluru to P. Siva Krishna, son of the first petitioner, after which, she was harassed by her husband and parents-in-law mentally, emotionally, psychologically and physically. She claimed that she had to quit her job from IBM due to the pressure of her husband and to have been ill-treated at her parents-in-law’s house due to suspicion, etc. She was restricted even from going out for shopping and after leaving her at her parents-in-law’s house after 10 days of her marriage, her husband left to United States of America promising to take her back, but he did not take her. The first respondent further claimed that in spite of a meeting her mother had with the parents-in-law on 10th April, 2010, thereafter, her plight continued to be the same and the parents-in-law did not even inform her husband about her plight. She claimed to have suffered depression due to the same and to have been not even taken care of her medical needs by the parents-in-law. The parents-in-law were also claimed to have been demanding a share in the property of the parents of the first respondent and, therefore, the first respondent desired to have a reconciliation of the differences, to be paid monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/-, to be sent for further studies in the United States of America, to have all the marriage expenses incurred by her parents returned and apologies from the husband and the parents-in-law to her and her family for the mental agony caused. 4. The petitioners claimed herein that the first respondent and her husband lived at Eluru only for 10 days after which, the first respondent’s husband left for United States of America and the first respondent was mostly residing at her parents house at Srikakulam visiting Eluru occasionally thereafter. The first respondent was claimed to have created a nuisance at the parents-in-law’s house when her husband returned to India between December, 2009 and April, 2010. The petitioners claimed that the allegations in the domestic violence case were accepted by the Protection Officer even without making any preliminary enquiry and none of the reliefs claimed can be granted against the petitioners. The petitioners also claimed that they never committed any acts of domestic violence at Eluru and the Court at Srikakulam has no territorial jurisdiction over the case. Hence, the petitioners desired the further proceedings against them to be quashed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings in the domestic violence case have to be terminated against the petitioners. 6. A close perusal of the complaint by the first respondent to the Protection Officer shows that her grievance was only against the husband and parents-in-law and not against the second petitioner herein. Scanning the complaint of the first respondent does not disclose even any remote link between the second petitioner herein and the marital life of the first respondent and in the absence of even a remote allegation of his ever interfering with the domestic life of the first respondent with her husband or parents-in-law, the second petitioner could not have been subjected to any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in any manner in the case. The second petitioner is claimed to be in service and though he appears to be residing in the same house as per the address given by the petitioners, he, being not stated to be involved, in any manner, in the disputes and being not guilty of any act of domestic violence against the first respondent, should be absolved from the further proceedings in the case. 7. However, when it comes to the first petitioner, all the specific allegations of the first respondent about various events in her marital life were specifically against the parents-in-law only. All the offending happenings were attributed by her to the conduct of the husband and the parents- in-law while they were living in the shared household in domestic relationship and, therefore, it is not for this Court to make any fact finding enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations. The facts in issue should be left open to be decided by the Magistrate on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties on merits in accordance with law and cannot be determined in a summary enquiry about invocation or otherwise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. The first respondent is, admittedly, residing in Srikakulam District with her parents and the domestic violence case has been initiated in the Court at Srikakulam taking advantage of Section 27 (1) (a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, whereby the person aggrieved temporarily residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court can invoke the jurisdiction of that Court for grant of protection order or any other orders under the Act. The challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Srikakulam, therefore, cannot stand and the case against the first petitioner cannot be discontinued. 9. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of the second petitioner and is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.8 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, are quashed against the second petitioner. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 7th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5070 of 2010 Date: 7th December, 2011 KL