HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2424 OF 2008 DATED: 16.07.2010 BETWEEN: B.Venkata Ramana and others .. Petitioners And The State of A.P. and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2424 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.32 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. The second respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Project Director/Protection Officer, District Women and Child Development Agency, Kurnool. The same is referred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool and registered as D.V.C.No.32 of 2007. The brief facts relevant for considering the criminal petition may be stated as follows: It is alleged in the D.V.C case that the marriage of the second respondent was performed with the petitioner No.1 on 17.05.2002 and at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.1,20,000/- towards dowry and subsequently, all the petitioners started harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that prior to the present case i.e. D.V.C.No.32 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners on a complaint given by the de facto complainant under Section 498-A IPC and the same was now pending as C.C.No.53 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Done, Kurnool District. The learned counsel further submitted that after the marriage with the second respondent, the first petitioner and the second respondent had set up a separate residence and they were living separately from the petitioners 2 to 4 and they are not concerned with the marital affairs of the first petitioner and the second respondent. They alleged that D.V.C.No.32 of 2007 is filed only to further harass them and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. Upon perusal of the entire material on record and on considering the submissions made by both the counsel, I am of the view that even if the petitioners were staying away with the complainant, it cannot be said that they are not in domestic relationship with the complainant. The domestic relationship is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act as follows: “(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;” Therefore, it is not necessary to constitute a domestic relationship that the petitioners must be actually living with the complainant at the time of making the application. Further, Section 36 of the Act lays down that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. Therefore, the pendency of C.C.No.53 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone, Kurnool is not bar to initiate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. This Court while dealing with the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners 1 to 4 on the mere ground that the police omitted them from the charge sheet relating to C.C.No.53 of 2006. For all the reasons, I absolutely see no ground in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners to quash the proceedings and consequently, dismiss the criminal petition. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated:16.07.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2424 OF 2008 DATED: 16.07.2010