IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.11448 of 2010 Between: Sk. Sadiq & 5 others .. Petitioners AND State of A.P. & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.11448 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri T. Rajanikanth Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the first respondent and Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. An application filed by the second respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”), resulted in the Magistrate taking cognizance of the same in D.V.C.No.2 of 2010. In the application, the second respondent claimed to have been married to the first petitioner herein on 19.03.2009 at which time, cash of Rs.1,05,000/-, 3 tulas of gold ornaments, 20 tulas of silver, another amount of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing clothes and a further amount of Rs.55,000/- for purchase of a Hero Honda bike and other household articles were claimed to have been given. The parents of the second respondent were also claimed to have incurred huge expenditure for the marriage, but the second respondent was claimed to have been subjected to mental and physical harassment firstly by the husband who was coming home late in the nights in a drunken state and physically harassing the second respondent by tearing her clothes, scratching her body with knife, etc. The other petitioners herein were claimed to be instigating the husband in doing such acts and it was also alleged that some times, the parents-in-law also beat the second respondent and the petitioners 4 to 6 used to scold her. The 6th petitioner was also alleged to have beaten the second respondent. The husband was alleged to be having illicit intimacy with one Shahem and on one day, the husband, with the assistance of petitioners 2, 3 and 6, was claimed to have poured acid on her face which was avoided by covering the face with a petticoat. She was claimed to have been necked out of the house on the same day demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and she was refused to be taken back. The second respondent claimed to have given a report to the police registered as Crime No.104 of 2009 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) and, hence, the second respondent claimed the reliefs of a protection order under Section 18 of the Act, prohibition of alienation of assets by the husband and parents-in-law, return of dowry amount and articles by the husband and the parents-in-law under Section 19 (8) of the Act, payment of maintenance by the husband at Rs.8,000/- per month under Section 20 (d) of the Act, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- by the husband under Section 22 of the Act, apart from costs and other appropriate reliefs. 3. The Magistrate taking cognizance of the said application is the subject of challenge in the criminal petition by the petitioners who claimed that in Crime No.104 of 2009, the second respondent alleged to have come out of the house on 29.10.2009 and in Crl.P.No.10847 of 2009, all further proceedings in the criminal case were stayed including the arrest of the husband and the parents-in-law. The petitioners further claimed that as she failed to harass the petitioners in the criminal case, she had chosen to file the present domestic violence case without any allegation of any specific incident within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, the petitioners desired that the further proceedings in the domestic violence case be quashed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case are liable to be quashed against the petitioners. 5. On an enquiry by the Court about the result of Crl.P.No.10847 of 2009 referred to in the criminal petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has furnished a copy of the order passed on 29.08.2011 for perusal. The said criminal petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court directing the police to investigate and file a final report in the crime within a period of three months from the date of the order. Therefore, it is clear that the criminal proceedings in pursuance of Crime No.104 of 2009 are still pending and they could not have thrown any light on the questions in issue in this criminal petition insofar as the husband and parents-in-law who are accused therein. 6. However, the contents of Crime No.104 of 2009, registered on the complaint of the second respondent, dated 03.11.2009, may be relevant to the extent of noting that petitioners 4 to 6 herein were not alleged to be involved in the committal of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. in the said complaint. The second respondent was specific about the various acts of cruelty and harassment by the husband and parents-in-law and if what has been alleged in the domestic violence case is true, the same would not have escaped a mention in the complaint of the second respondent to the police in Crime No.104 of 2009. 7. That apart, a close perusal of the domestic violence application shows that there was absolutely no specific reference to any overt acts of respondents 4 and 5. A general reference was made to the instigation by respondents 2 to 6 to the first respondent to the domestic violence case, while respondents 4 to 6 were alleged to be scolding the second respondent at times on some pretext or the other. No specific details of when, where and how the respondents 4 to 6 to the domestic violence case involved in such offending behaviour was not stated. It is true that insofar as the 6th respondent to the domestic violence case is concerned, it was specifically alleged that the 6th respondent used to beat the petitioner in the domestic violence case and also was part of the incident on a day when acid was poured on the face of the second respondent by the husband and parents-in-law. That was stated to be on the same day on which the second respondent was necked out of the matrimonial home. Though these two allegations seem to be attributing something specific to the 6th petitioner herein, the fact that the second respondent made absolutely no reference to such incidents in the complaint to the police, dated 03.11.2009, makes such allegations highly suspicious and not acceptable at face value. 8. Even irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the various allegations, the reliefs sought for in the domestic violence case were specifically against the husband and parents-in-law except in respect of the protection order. The prohibition of alienation of assets was sought for only against the husband and parents-in-law and similar was the relief sought for return of the dowry amount and articles of the second respondent. The payment of maintenance and compensation was specifically sought for against the husband only and it is only the protection order under Section 18 of the Act that can be considered to be such as can be granted against petitioners 4 to 6 herein also. However, the protection is sought for in respect of the premises where the second respondent is staying as of now, i.e., where the second respondent is staying with her parents and not in the house of the petitioners herein. The young petitioners 4 to 6 being of such nature as to indulge in threatening the safety of the second respondent at her parents’ house is unnatural and the petitioners 4 to 6 were not stated to be involved in any criminal activity otherwise at any point of time. If a protection order were to be ultimately obtained by the second respondent against the husband and parents-in-law, that should be a sufficient deterrent against the petitioners 4 to 6 also and, therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners 4 to 6 appears to be not in the interests of justice and the inherent powers of this Court should be invoked in respect of them. 9. Therefore, the criminal petition should fail in respect of petitioners 1 to 3, as this Court cannot convert itself into a fact finding Court in a limited enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and as the criminal proceedings and the domestic violence case have to reach their logical conclusion on merits in respect of them before the trial Courts. The observations made in this order are purely confined to considering the request of the petitioners 4 to 6 against continuance of the domestic violence case against them and shall not operate to the prejudice of either the second respondent or the petitioners 1 to 3 in the domestic violence case which has to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 10. With the above observations, the criminal petition is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1 to 3 and is allowed in respect of petitioners 4 to 6 and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, Medak District, are quashed against the petitioners 4 to 6. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22nd December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.11448 of 2010 Date: 22nd December, 2011 KL