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.12789 of 2010 Between: Sali Bhima Rao & 4 others .. Petitioners AND State of A.P. & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.12789 of 2010 ORDER: The criminal petition is with a request to quash the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.23 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari District, against the petitioners. 2. The second respondent herein filed the complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband and the petitioners herein alleging that she was married on 10.04.2008 at Machilipatnam at which time, her parents paid Rs.5,00,000/- cash, 34 sovereigns of gold ornaments including a gold chain and two gold rings, a watch, a bracelet and Rs.50,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams. Sari Samans worth Rs.75,000/- were also given when she moved to the marital home. She complained that for three months, her husband looked after her well, but started coming late in the nights in a drunken state and beating the second respondent using filthy language. The first respondent in the domestic violence case, a practising Advocate, was, thus, harassing the second respondent herein, an employee of the District Treasury Office, Eluru, and the petitioners were also claimed to have subjected the second respondent to physical and mental torture and abuses. She further stated that she was pressurized to get moneys from her parents and also obtain a loan from her salary to help the husband to establish a petrol bunk for which he got a licence. The mediations by elders were in vain and the second respondent got herself transferred to Eluru to live with her mother. Even then, the husband and the petitioners herein were alleged to be using filthy language while speaking through cell phones and to be sending vulgar messages to her. The husband was claimed to have attempted to kill her on 19.07.2009, having come in a drunken state for which a report was given to the Women Police Station, Eluru. The second respondent, therefore, claimed permanent alimony for maintenance or a share in the properties, medical attendance, shelter, return of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, Adapaduchu Lanchanams of Rs.50,000/- and Sari Samans of Rs.75,000/-, apart from the gold articles and other appropriate orders. 3. The petitioners herein contend that the petitioners 1 and 2 are permanent residents of Machilipatnam and never resided together with the second respondent and her husband. They never shared a household with the couple. The third petitioner, who is unmarried and studied M.Sc., is preparing for Banking Services Recruitment Board Examination at Rajahmundry. The 4th petitioner, the brother of the husband of the second respondent, is also unmarried and a Post Graduate in Business Administration working as a Manager in Instrument Technique Limited at Hyderabad since five years residing there. The 5th petitioner was claimed to have married long back and to be residing with her husband and children separately at Machilipatnam. Her husband was stated to be Senior Accountant in the District Treasury Office at Machilipatnam. No specific overt acts were attributed to the petitioners and the petitioners were unaware as to what happened to the criminal complaint filed by the second respondent. The husband alone was arrested on 25.09.2009 and was released on bail. The petitioners also stated that the second respondent stayed with the parents-in-law only for the customary period of three days after marriage and the petitioners claimed that they were innocent of any offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) or any acts of domestic violence. Therefore, they desired that the further proceedings in the domestic violence case be quashed. 4. Sri P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the first respondent and Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent are heard. 5. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case have to be terminated against the petitioners. 6. The material papers filed along with the criminal petition show that at the instance of the present petitioners, the further proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2009, on the file of the Women Police Station, Eluru, were stayed against them pending Crl.P.No.8635 of 2009 claimed to have been filed on identical grounds claiming innocence of any offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 I.P.C. 7. The copy of the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India to the 4th petitioner shows that he is a resident of Neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by 01.02.2009. A similar Identity Card issued to the third petitioner shows her to be a resident of the same house by 02.05.2003 by which time she was unmarried. The Identity Card issued to the 5th petitioner, dated 26.07.2003, is also similar. The Identity Cards issued to the petitioners 1 and 2 show that the petitioners 3 and 5 were also residing in the same house at that time. The Household Card issued to the first petitioner on 25.08.2005 included all the petitioners as family members. 8. The marriage of the second respondent with the first respondent to the domestic violence case took place on 10.04.2008 and the 5th petitioner aged 35 years even by 01.01.2003 according to the Electoral Identity Card being married prior to the marriage of the second respondent with the first respondent to the domestic violence case is but natural. She claimed to be residing with her husband and children separately at Machilipatnam itself having nothing to do with the marital life of the second respondent. The 4th petitioner aged 25 years by the time of the Household Card in 2005 completing his Post Graduation in Business Administration and working at Hyderabad since five years as a Manager of Instruments Technique Limited is also not unnatural and he could not have physically able to interfere with marital life of the second respondent. Similarly, the third petitioner was aged 25 years even by the time of the Identity Card in 2003 and completing her M.Sc. and preparing for a Banking Services Recruitment Board Examination at Rajahmundry is also in tune with the ordinary and natural course of human events. The petitioners 3 and 5, being the sisters, and the 4th petitioner, being the brother of the first respondent in the domestic violence case, could not have been parties to any cruelty or harassment to the second respondent in her marital life for no reason and even the petitioners 1 and 2 claimed that the second respondent never lived with them together in a shared household in a domestic relationship since the marriage. They claimed that by the time of the marriage, the second respondent was working as a Senior Accountant at the Sub-Treasury Office, Nidadavolu, and if it were true, the second respondent would not have been living regularly in the house of the petitioners 1 and 2 at Machilipatnam after the marriage. The petitioners claimed that the second respondent was working at Nidadavolu, Hyderabad and Eluru during the entire period and if it were so, none of the petitioners could have lived with the second respondent in a shared household in a domestic relationship to consider any acts of domestic violence involving them to be probable or possible. 9. Even the allegations in the domestic violence case by the second respondent were specific only against the first respondent to the domestic violence case, who is her husband, who is an Advocate, and would not have been in the natural course been influenced by the parents or the sisters or the brother in moulding his marital relationship with his wife. The dowry in the shape of cash, gold ornaments, watch, Adapaduchu Lanchanams and Sari Samans was not claimed to have been entrusted to any of the petitioners and it will be primarily the husband that has to answer any claims for return of the same. The addiction of the husband to vices and his abusing and beating the wife cannot fasten any culpability to the petitioners merely because of a vague allegation that the attitude of the husband was supported by the petitioners. Vague allegations were made about all the respondents to the domestic violence case subjecting the second respondent herein to physical and mental torture, abuses, fisting and all types of cruelty, but no specifics were given as to when, where, how and before whom these acts of domestic violence were committed. The elders who allegedly conducted several mediations were not named or identified and the alleged use of filthy language by the respondents or their sending vulgar messages on cell phones even after the second respondent left for Eluru were not corroborated by any record of the same which could have been available. The incident on 19.07.2009 is about the husband only and it is very clear from the complaint by the second respondent to the Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that it was the husband alone that was indulging in physical violence, mental harassment and cruelty in demanding money and none of the petitioners herein. 10. In any view, the reliefs sought for in the domestic violence case are permanent alimony towards maintenance, a share in the properties, medical attendance and shelter which the husband alone had to answer and not the petitioners. The return of the dowry also could have been only enforced only against the husband in the absence of any specific allegation of the dowry paid in cash or kind being entrusted to or in the custody of any of the petitioners since the marriage till the filing of the case. Therefore, continuance of the domestic violence case against the petitioners on such vague, general and omnibus allegations will be a travesty of justice and the inherent powers of this Court have to be invoked in this regard. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the further proceedings against the petitioners in D.V.C.No.23 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, are quashed. No observations made in this order shall prejudice the determination of the domestic violence case between the second respondent and her husband on merits in accordance with law. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22nd December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.12789 of 2010 Date: 22nd December, 2011 KL