IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4744 of 2010 Between: Shahanaz Begum & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Shaheen Begum & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4744 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Mallesham, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, against the petitioners. 3. The first respondent has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Magistrate alleging that she was married to M.A. Rahaman on 09.04.2007 at Nizamabad and her parents gave 5 tulas of gold, 20 tulas of silver articles, household articles and furniture worth Rs.85,000/-, etc., to the husband. The parents were also stated to have given a Splender Plus motor cycle worth Rs.50,000/- and cash of Rs.40,000/- at the time of the marriage as dowry, but still the first respondent to the domestic violence case was stated to be harassing the first respondent herein for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The husband was claimed to be beating the first respondent herein severely on the instigation of the other respondents to the domestic violence case and was alleged to have even attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene on her at one time. He was alleged to have attempted to hang her to a ceiling fan on another occasion and was further alleged to have set fire to her while sleeping in the bedroom on one night from which she luckily escaped. The respondents to the domestic violence case were alleged to be not even giving proper food to the first respondent herein and in spite of a Panchayat before caste elders at Bodhan, things were claimed to have not improved. The first respondent herein alleged her husband to be addicted to vices and she was claimed to have been driven away from the matrimonial home on 17.04.2009 asking her to return only with the additional dowry. She claimed to have gone to her parents at Nizmabad and alleged that on 03.06.2009, the respondents to the domestic violence case demanded an additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- to perform the marriage of the 4th respondent therein and the first respondent herein was claimed to have been forced to give a report to the police resulting in Crime No.86 of 2009 of II Town Police Station, Nizamabad. The first respondent herein further alleged about the respondents 5 and 6 to the domestic violence case harassing her thereafter joining with the other respondents therein for the additional dowry. She, therefore, claimed reliefs of a protection order, maintenance, compensation, legal expenses and prohibition order. 4. The petitioners herein claimed that they are the sisters of the husband of the first respondent herein and they claimed to be living separately at different places in Nizamabad District and had nothing to do with the marital life of the first respondent with her husband at Yellareddy. They also stated that there was no allegation of any harassment against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.583 of 2009 filed by the police on the basis of the report given by the first respondent herein against respondents 1 to 4 in the domestic violence case. The reliefs also could not have been claimed against the petitioners and, therefore, they desired the further proceedings against them to be quashed. 5. The point for consideration is whether there is absolutely no prima facie case against any of the petitioners herein to enable continuance of the domestic violence case against them. 6. The first petitioner is stated to be a resident of Bhanapoor, while the second petitioner is claimed to be residing in Kamareddy and the third petitioner is alleged to be a resident of Banswada. All the three petitioners are stated to be married and are claimed to be living with their respective husbands and families elsewhere than the husband of the first respondent herein and his father and aunt. Even the addresses given by the first respondent herself in the domestic violence case show that the claims of the petitioners herein to be true. How and why they have intervened in the domestic life of the first respondent herein at Yellareddy while residing at some other places is unexplained. A close perusal of the contents of the domestic violence application filed by the first respondent clearly shows that the allegations against the petitioners herein are vague, general and omnibus in character without any specification of any particular incident at a particular place on a particular date involving any of the petitioners except the alleged incident involving the petitioners on 03.06.2009. The allegations in respect of that incident coupled with the copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No.583 of 2009 furnished by Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners show that the petitioners 2 and 3 herein were not alleged to be guilty of any conduct which could have made them liable for any offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The specific allegations in the criminal case as seen from the charge sheet were made against the husband, father, aunt and the first petitioner herein in the report given by the first respondent herein to the police, but the police, after independent investigation, found that the involvement of the first petitioner herein was not established. She was, accordingly, not made an accused in the final report submitted by the police and the first respondent is not claimed to have taken any further action against deletion of the first petitioner herein from the criminal case. That apart, petitioners 2 and 3 herein who were not alleged to have committed any criminal misconduct concerning the marital life of the first respondent herein in the criminal case, were peculiarly alleged in the domestic violence case to have started harassing the first respondent herein after registration of the criminal case as if they desired to be part of the array of persons being prosecuted by the first respondent before various Courts. When the petitioners are leading happy marital lives with their own families elsewhere, their alleged involvement in the alleged acts of domestic violence does not appear natural and at any rate, the allegations do not inspire any confidence in a judicial mind. Vague allegations of the involvement of all the respondents to the domestic violence case in the harassment through out cannot be a substitute for making any specific complaint against any of the petitioners concerning any identified act of domestic violence at any relevant time. In any view, the petitioners could not have been made responsible for answering the reliefs of maintenance or legal expenses claimed by the first respondent herein in the domestic violence case and in the absence of any specification of the acts of domestic violence committed by any of the petitioners, even a protection order or prohibitory order or compensation ex facie do not appear to be available against any of the petitioners. Under the circumstances, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners herein will be a travesty of justice and they have to succeed, while making it clear that none of the observations herein will operate to the prejudice of either party in the further proceedings in the domestic violence case against the husband, his father and aunt. 7. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, are quashed against the petitioners. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 7th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4744 of 2010 Date: 7th December, 2011 KL