THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.12975 AND 13414 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both the Criminal Petitions are directed against the proceedings in D.V.C.No.243 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, in which the petitioner in Crl.P.No.13414 of 2010 is the ﬁrst respondent and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010 are the respondents 2 to 5. 2. On the complaint of the ﬁrst respondent in both the Criminal Petitions, for herself and her minor children- respondents 2 and 3 in both the Criminal Petitions, to the Protection Officer, dated 18.09.2010, the Protection Oﬃcer ﬁled a domestic violence report before the Magistrate who had taken cognizance against respondents 1 to 5. The ﬁrst respondent claimed her marriage with the petitioner in Crl.P.No.13414 of 2010 to have been performed on 20.11.2002 after payment of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- on 15.11.2002. She claimed expensive jewellery and household articles to have been given by her parents apart from expensive gifts and cash from her relatives to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. Two house plots were claimed to have been registered in her name by her parents. The husband and his family members were claimed to have demanded an additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was also paid on 10.12.2002. Still a further demand for Rs.5,00,000/- towards ‘Adapaduchu Katnam’ to the third petitioner in Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010 was stated to have been made, which was also paid, only after which the ﬁrst respondent’s marriage was consummated. She claimed to be living in a domestic relationship with her husband and parents-in-law at Hyderabad and thereafter, to have joined her husband in United States of America. She also stated that her husband’s sickness due to epilepsy was suppressed and the four petitioners in Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010 were stated to have instigated on phone the husband to demand additional dowry. She further stated that when she was blessed with a son, her parents-in-law came to United States of America whereat also they were constantly harassing her for additional dowry. She claimed that on her return to India also, demands for additional dowry continued more speciﬁcally on 25.01.2008, 09.02.2008 and 10.02.2008. The husband was alleged to be having forced sexual intercourse at United States of America resulting in a domestic violence case there. She also narrated the further events at United States of America resulting in diﬀerent orders from the Courts concerned and her ﬁling a criminal complaint on return to India in Crime No.20 of 2008/C.C.No.336 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. She, therefore, desired that further action be taken under the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005 ( for short, ‘the Act’), in her complaint to the Protection Oﬃcer and on the consequential domestic violence report of the Protection Oﬃcer against the petitioners in both the cases, D.V.C. No.243 of 2010 was taken cognizance. 3. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010 claimed that the ﬁrst respondent left her husband on her own volition and the ﬁnal report in Crime No.20 of 2008 deleted Section 19(8) of the Act from the array of allegations. The ﬁrst respondent obviously is interested in claiming maintenance against her husband and not against the parents-in-law, sister and her husband, who are residing separately and never lived together in a shared household. 4. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.13414 of 2010 claimed that he was not allowed even to see his own daughter and the ﬁrst respondent was cruel in the marital life towards him. He is employed in Bangalore, due to which it became very diﬃcult to attend the Court on all dates of hearing at Hyderabad. Hence, the petitioners in both the cases desired the further proceedings in the domestic violence case to be quashed. 5. Heard Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Gopala Krishnamacharyulu, learned counsel representing Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the fourth respondent. 6. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case against the petitioners have to be discontinued in both the cases. 7. The charge sheet in C.C.No.336 of 2009 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ﬁled by the police after independent statutory investigation was against all the ﬁve petitioners herein. But, in so far as the present purpose is concerned, it may be noted that the sister and her husband were never claimed to have lived in a shared household in a domestic relationship with the ﬁrst respondent and her husband. Even the last incident on 10.02.2008 was at the house of the parents-in-law. The sister and her husband were shown even in the charge sheet to be residing elsewhere separately. The allegations in the complaint of the ﬁrst respondent to the police leading to registration of the crime and consequent investigation also did not have any additional facts relating to the involvement of the sister and her husband. The speciﬁc allegations throughout the criminal proceedings seem to be only against the husband and parents-in-law during the stay of the ﬁrst respondent with them. The domestic violence report ﬁled by the Protection Oﬃcer also clearly showed the sister and her husband to be residing separately and entries in Form No.I in the domestic violence case show the allegations against the sister and her husband to be concerning the alleged demand for ‘Adapaduchu katnam’ and for additional dowry, but not concerning any physical violation of the person of the ﬁrst respondent. The allegations in the complaint by the ﬁrst respondent to the Protection Oﬃcer are already extracted above and it is thus seen that the allegations insofar as the sister and her husband are concerned, are general, vague and ambiguous without any speciﬁcs. Such allegations are easy to make but diﬃcult to refute and in view of the sister and her husband never living together with the ﬁrst respondent at any stage of marital life and in view of the unnatural and improbable conduct attributed to them in connection with the marital life of the ﬁrst respondent, which cannot inspire conﬁdence in a judicial mind even ex facie, the continuance of further proceedings against them in the domestic violence case will be a travesty of justice when they are leading their life separately. The marital life of the ﬁrst respondent with her husband was mostly in United States of America with which the sister and her husband have nothing to do. They need not be prosecuted further in these proceedings, more so, in view of various reliefs claimed in the domestic violence case including the protection order, residence order, maintenance and compensation being reliefs, which could not have been considered to be granted against the sister and her husband in the absence of any allegations of domestic violence by them. The further proceedings in the domestic violence case have to be therefore, terminated against them, while it is made clear that any observation in this order in this regard shall have no bearing on the determination of C.C.No.336 of 2008 on its own merits in accordance with law on the evidence to be placed by the parties before the Criminal Court. 8. However, in so far as the husband and parents of the husband are concerned, in view of the various speciﬁc allegations made about the demands for dowry, additional dowry and other demands for cash and kind and the consequential events that allegedly happened, any quashing of the proceedings against them in these restricted summary proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. This Court cannot convert itself into a fact- ﬁnding authority and the merits of the allegations have to be determined by the trial Court after due enquiry in accordance with law. 9. However, insofar as the request of the husband for dispensing with his physical presence is concerned, in view of his employment at Bangalore, compelling him to attend the Court on all the dates of hearing will necessarily involve avoidable discomﬁture to his carrier. Similarly, the second petitioner in Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010 is stated to be not in good health at the advanced age of more than 64 years and her presence is also requested to be dispensed with. The request of the husband and his mother for such an exemption from personal appearance can be suitably considered, while the Criminal Petitions have to be ordered in tune with the above conclusions. 10. Therefore, the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.243 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed against the third and fourth petitioners in Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010, which Criminal Petition is allowed to that extent. Crl.P.No.13414 of 2010 and Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010 in respect of the petitioners 1 and 2 therein are dismissed. The presence of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.13414 of 2010 and the second petitioner in Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010 shall be dispensed with on all future dates of hearing, except when their personal presence is absolutely necessary and indispensable for further progress of the case, if the said petitioners make an appropriate request to the trial Court through an appropriate application for the said purpose. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 30, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12975 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13414 OF 2010 Between in Crl.P.No.12975 of 2010: D.Satyanarayana and others. ...PETITIONERS AND D.Naga Maheswari and others. ...RESPONDENTS Between in Crl.P.No.13414 of 2010: Doddapaneni Murali … PETITIONER AND D.Naga Maheswari and others. … RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.12975 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13414 OF 2010 30.11.2011 YVL