IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.3809 of 2010 Between: Mumtaz Khatun and 5 others .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri A. Jaya Shankara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor-1st respondent. DVC.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, against the husband of the 2nd respondent and the petitioners herein compelled the petitioners to approach this Court with this Criminal Petition seeking exercise of the inherent powers by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against them. The Domestic Violence Case had its origin in the report of the 2nd respondent to the Protection Officer on 26-11-2008 in which she alleged that since her marriage 10 years earlier, her husband, who looked after her properly only for one year, started harassing her physically and mentally for additional dowry. She claimed that her parents satisfied the demands of her husband to the extent possible but when they were unable to pay the amounts, her mother-in-law and sisters of her husband joined her husband in spreading rumors against her and in humiliating the parents of the 2nd respondent when they approached them. She claimed that her husband confined her in a room when she threatened to file a police case and when her husband tried to kill her by strangulation while she was sleeping, she claimed to have pushed her husband and escaped from him along with her children and gone to her parents house and one of the brothers-in-law of her husband was claimed to be threatening to kill them, with political support. On such complaint, the Protection Officer filed a domestic violence report before the Competent Magistrate against the husband and the petitioners herein for reliefs under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and any other appropriate reliefs. The details given in Form-I themselves disclose that the petitioners 1 to 3 herein are residing at Ankamma Bavi, Panyam, while petitioners 4 and 5 herein are residing at Kadapa. It is only the 6th petitioner that is residing at Proddutur, but in a different address. The petitioners claimed that since the date of marriage, the 2nd respondent and her husband were residing separately and the question of any demands for additional dowry or harassment from any of the petitioners does not arise. The petitioners claimed to be having nothing to do with the marital life of the 2nd respondent and her husband and denied having committed any acts of omission or commission within the meaning of the statute to be liable to any reliefs under the provisions thereof. The point for consideration is whether there is ex facie any material, which can suggest the possible liability of any of the petitioners to any reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? The report from the 2nd respondent itself shows that the harassment and cruelty meted out to the 2nd respondent from her husband was due to the demands by the husband for additional dowry, which was stated by the 2nd respondent to be due to the words of the parents-in-law and the sisters of the husband. Specific allegations about the threats and physical violence were only against the husband, while others were alleged to be involved only in spreading rumors or humiliating the parents of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, no physical or mental harassment and cruelty were specifically and unambiguously alleged to have been committed by any of the petitioners against the 2nd respondent. If the 6th petitioner is residing separately in Proddutur and the other petitioners are not residents of Proddutur at any time where the 2nd respondent and her husband were living since after the marriage, any physical involvement of any of the petitioners in the marital discord between the couple cannot be considered probable. Violently stated vague allegations do not constitute a substitute for specification of any acts or omissions constituting the cause of action for suing the petitioners under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners claimed that since inception the 2nd respondent and her husband residing separately have nothing to do with the petitioners in respect of their marital life and when the claim appears to be probablised by the material on record, continuance of the Domestic Violence Case against the petitioners will be unjust and inequitable. This is a fit case where the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked accordingly. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the further proceedings in DVC.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, against the petitioners are quashed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-10-2011 Ksn