IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7841 of 2008 Between: Sokam Chandrasekhar and 3 others .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri S. Siva Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor-1st respondent. The petitioners seek quashing of further proceedings in DVC No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet, and the 2nd respondent herein filed the said Domestic Violence Case initiated with her complaint to the Protection Officer alleging that after the marriage with the 1st petitioner herein on 10-03-2004 and after receiving cash, gold and articles towards dowry, she was looked after properly only for four months after which all the petitioners started harassing physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. The complaint specifically alleged about the 2nd respondent being ill-treated even after birth of a daughter Tejaswi on 31-05-2005 and a panchayat was also claimed to have been held before the elders, during which the petitioners demanded cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complaint was also about the specific incident during which the petitioners abused the 2nd respondent in foul language and beat her. She was claimed to have been harassed continuously to divorce the 1st petitioner or bring Rs.15,00,000/- as additional dowry. During the second pregnancy also, she was claimed to have been subjected to further harassment by all the petitioners and ultimately the 2nd respondent herein was claimed to have been brought back from the matrimonial home by her paternal uncle. After the birth of a boy on 05-04-2007 also, the petitioners were claimed to have asked the 2nd respondent herein to return only if she is returning with the additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/-. On this complaint, a domestic incident report was submitted by the Protection Officer to the Magistrate implicating all the petitioners in the Domestic Violence Case and showing them as respondents to the reliefs claimed by the 2nd respondent herein under Sections 18 to 20 and 33 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners claimed herein that the 2nd respondent herein never stayed with the petitioners since 5-11-2006 and they referred to the petitioners themselves being beaten when they went to see the son of the 2nd respondent and they also narrated about the police taking the husband into custody in the criminal case, the 2nd respondent filing M.C.No.14 of 2008 for maintenance, the husband filing a divorce case and other incidents. The petitioners, who claimed quashing of further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case, are thus disputing the allegations of fact made by the complainant. The jurisdiction of this Court in an enquiry into a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the inherent powers of the High Court is very restricted and limited and this Court cannot convert itself into a fact finding Court in such an enquiry. Similar allegations and counter allegations have been made by the parties against each other in Crl.M.P.No.5107 of 2009 also herein and no deeper probe need be made into the truth or otherwise of the said allegations herein. When specific allegations about the conduct of the four petitioners were made regarding their questionable conduct concerning the matrimonial life of the 2nd respondent, they have to be enquired into and determined by the trial Court and not by this Court and the truth or otherwise of the allegations is beyond the scope of this enquiry. While the proceedings, therefore, cannot be quashed, it is to be noted that the petitioners 2 and 3, the parents of the 1st petitioner, are advanced in age, while the 4th petitioner is stated to be the employee working elsewhere. Any insistence on their physical presence on all the dates of hearing is claimed to be imposing an unbearable physical and mental burden on the petitioners 2 to 4 and under the circumstances, the physical presence of the petitioners 2 to 4 can be dispensed with when an appropriate request is made by them before the trial Court. Therefore, if the petitioners 2 to 4 so desire and are so advised, they can approach the trial Court to dispense with their personal presence before the trial Court on the future dates of hearing, except when their physical presence is absolutely indispensable for the further progress of the case. If such a request were to be made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same under the circumstances. Subject to the said direction, the Criminal Petition should fail and is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-10-2011 Ksn