HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4895 of 2010 ORAL ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 3 are the respondents 3 to 5 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovvur, West Godavari District, filed by the Protection Officer at the instance of the 1st respondent/defacto complainant. The respondents 1 and 2 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2010 are husband and father-in-law of the victim and they are not figuring as parties in this petition. The 1st petitioner is mother-in-law and the petitioners 2 and 3 are sisters- in-law of the 1st respondent. The 2nd petitioner is a married sister- in-law. D.V.C.No.6 of 2010 is filed claiming several reliefs of protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary reliefs under Section 20, compensation or damages under Section 22, apart from interim reliefs under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against husband and in-laws. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 1st respondent filed another criminal case in Crime No.188 of 2009 before Kovvur Town Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 363/34 I.P.C. against her husband and in-laws and that the police arrested husband and father-in-law only and produced them before the Magistrate along with remand report, in which it was observed by the police that the case against mother- in-law and sisters-in-law is not substantiated by evidence; and that, therefore, there cannot be a domestic violence case against the same persons. 3. Liability under the Criminal Law and liability under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are entirely different. Nature of enquiry in both the cases is also distinct and different. One cannot cut at the root of the other case. Approach of dealing with such cases is also different. Since the 1st respondent herein claimed several reliefs against all the respondents in D.V.C.No.6 of 2010, it cannot be said that the petitioners 1 to 3 are not necessary parties to the petition or that they are being harassed by the 1st respondent. Admittedly, there is domestic relationship between the petitioners and the 1st respondent. The question is about their liability, which the Magistrate will decide after due enquiry. 4. It is contended that the petitioners are ladies and are residents of different places and they are not able to attend the Court on every date of adjournment. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, personal attendance of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein/respondents 3 to 5 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2010 is dispensed with during enquiry of the case by the lower Court except on the date of delivery of judgment, in case they are represented by an advocate. _________________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 11.06.2010. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4895 of 2010 11.06.2010 (Msr)