IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5590 of 2009 Between: M. Ananthamma and others .. Petitioners AND The State of A.P. rep. by P.P., High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.8 of 2009 on the ﬁle of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners herein. 2. The 2nd respondent herein ﬁled an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) against her husband Swaraj and the petitioners herein alleging that she was married on 12-06-1994, at which time her parents paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry, 25 tulas of gold ornaments, silver articles, clothes and household articles to the 1st respondent in the domestic violence case. Marriage expenses were stated to be Rs.1,00,000/- and the husband and the petitioners herein were claimed to be ill-treating the 2nd respondent from the ﬁrst day. Three sons were claimed to have been born out of the wedlock and it was alleged that in 1995 petitioners 1, 3 and 4 beat the 2nd respondent mercilessly and poured kerosene on her, which resulted in a report to Saifabad police who asked the husband to put up separate residence for himself and his wife. Though the 2nd respondent and her husband were living separately since then, still the petitioners were claimed to be frequently visiting them and provoking the husband against the 2nd respondent. It was further alleged that they were harassing and threatening her and the husband became addicted to vices, alcoholism, gambling and watching blue ﬁlms. The 2nd respondent alleged that the husband was beating her before the children levelling wild allegations and was causing burn injuries to her. The husband was stated to be under the control of the petitioners herein who are interfering in the matrimonial life of the 2nd respondent with their domination over the husband. The 2nd respondent further alleged that in 2004, the husband and the wife decided to purchase a house by selling her gold and other ornaments and contribution from her father to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The couple and their children were stated to have shifted to the new house on 08-11-2004, even after which the petitioners herein were continuing the harassment and torture against the 2nd respondent. The husband was claimed to have made a false report to Amberpet police to overcome his own acts of domestic violence and it was further alleged that in the ﬁrst week of March, 2009, the husband burnt near the index ﬁnger of right hand of the 2nd respondent with heated glass. An incident was further alleged to have happened on 18-03-2009 when the petitioners visited the house after sending out the children and locking the 2nd respondent in a room. The husband and the petitioners were claimed to have removed the clothes of the 2nd respondent, abused and beaten her with belt and kicked her with legs. The television was said to have been kept in high volume to prevent the neighbours from hearing the sounds and ultimately, the neighbours rescued the 2nd respondent, and the petitioners and the husband took away the elder son of the 2nd respondent with them. A report to the police resulted in crime No.118 of 2009. The 2nd respondent further stated that the gold ornaments and silver articles also were taken away from her and she and her children are residing in the house at Amberpet, while the husband is living with his mother at Mothilal Nehru Nagar, Lower tank bund, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent claimed to be suﬀering from want of means for maintenance of herself and her children and providing education to them and she claimed to be still being threatened by the husband and the petitioners. Therefore, she desired that a protection order be passed in her favour, apart from a residential order prohibiting the respondents to the case from interfering with the possession of Amberpet house, return of gold ornaments, silver ornaments, clothes, other articles and cash of Rs.90,000/-, permanent custody of her elder son, return of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance and other expenses to her and her children. 3. The petitioners, who are respondents 2 to 6 in the domestic violence case, contended that in crime No.118 of 2009, the same allegations were made by the 2nd respondent and the family members are roped in just to take vengeance. The petitioners claimed that the 1st petitioner, the widowed mother-in-law, is living separately since 14 years and at the age of 65 years she is suﬀering with old age ailments. Petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to be the brother of the husband and his wife who were married on 25-11-1988 and having two daughters and a son, having nothing to do with the family and living separately since 21 years. The 4th and 5th petitioners are stated to be sisters of the husband, married on 09-03-1991 and 28-07-1987 and living separately since 18 years and 22 years respectively with their respective husbands and families. They were claimed to have nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the 2nd respondent and her husband and therefore, they desired that the 2nd respondent, who is residing separately with her husband and children since 15 years, be denied grant of any relief under the special statute against them. 4. Heard Sri K. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Padma Sharanappa, learned counsel representing Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor/the 1st respondent. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for discontinuance of further proceedings against the petitioners in the domestic violence case ? 6. Point: The contents of the application ﬁled by the 2 nd respondent before the Magistrate under the Act show that all the happenings in the marital life to the detriment of the 2nd respondent were alleged to have happened between the marriage on 12-06-1994 and the purchase of a house at Amberpet by the 2nd respondent and her husband on 08-11-2004, since when they are residing in the said house. It was only an incident in the ﬁrst week of March, 2009 involving the husband alone and the further incident on 18-03- 2009 allegedly involving the husband and the petitioners that were alleged to have happened after the Act had come into force on 26-10-2006. 7. The ﬁrst incident, which allegedly happened in 1995 involving respondents 2, 4 and 5 to the domestic violence case allegedly resulted in a complaint to Saifabad police and admittedly Saifabad police did not put the criminal law into motion against the oﬀending respondents, but counselled both the parties to lead to separate living of the 2nd respondent and her husband to avoid such allegations. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations was obviously not gone into by the statutory independent investigating agency and no other action was claimed to have been taken by the 2nd respondent and her parents and no document is claimed to be available to corroborate the claims of counselling by Saifabad police. Admittedly, since the said counselling by the police, the 2nd respondent and her husband are living separately from other respondents to the domestic violence case and all further allegations made against the petitioners herein were relating to their frequent visits to the house of the couple and instigation to the husband to harass, torture and treat cruelly the 2nd respondent. The addresses given by 2nd respondent herself in the domestic violence case show that the brother of the husband and his wife, impleaded as respondents 3 and 4, are residents of a separate house in Amberpet with the 3rd respondent to the domestic violence case being a Government employee. The addresses also show that respondents 5 and 6 to the domestic violence case were married and are residing in their own houses at Banjara hills and Thirumalgherry respectively. What the petitioners claimed herein is that petitioners 4 and 5 were married on 09-03-1991 and 28-07-1987 respectively and are living since then with their respective husbands and families. The said claims are not denied and if petitioners 4 and 5 were married 18 and 22 years back respectively and are leading happy marital lives with their husbands and families, there was absolutely no reason or motive which can be the driving force for them to interfere with the matrimonial life of their brother. Petitioners 2 and 3 also claim to have been married on 25-11-1988 having three children out of the wedlock and to be living separately since the marriage for a period of over 21 years. The elder brother of the husband of the 2nd respondent and his wife also cannot be attributed any motive or reason for interfering in the marital life of the 1st respondent to the domestic violence case and the allegations in the domestic violence case do not absolutely attribute any cause for the petitioners to instigate the husband to commit all sorts of acts of domestic violence against the wife. The material papers ﬁled by the petitioners show that a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the house at Amberpet is pending between the husband and the wife, in which the husband made counter allegations against the wife concerning her conduct in the matrimonial home. Even the allegations in the domestic violence case on the whole may indicate the husband alone to be alleged to be indulging in physical violence against the person of the 2nd respondent, while the role assigned to the petitioners herein was one of instigation except concerning the incident on 18-03-2009. 8. The incident on 18-03-2009 is the subject of the complaint by the 2nd respondent to the police resulting in crime No.118 of 2009 of woman police station, central crime station, Hyderabad and C.C. No.878 of 2010 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The contents of the charge sheet, a copy of which has been furnished for perusal by the Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, show that the complaint by the 2nd respondent to the police referred to the incident involving respondents 2, 4 and 5 to the domestic violence case to have resulted in a report to Khairatabad police, while the claim in the domestic violence case is about a complaint to Saifabad police. The harassment since the separate living by the husband and the wife was alleged in the complaint of the 2nd respondent only against the husband and the demands for separation were also alleged to be only from the husband and the 1st petitioner herein. The involvement of the other petitioners was stated to be only during the incident on 18-03-2009. The statutory investigating agency after independent investigation, found, according to the charge sheet, that in spite of making all possible enquiries, no prima facie oﬀence was established against accused 2 to 7 who never stayed with the 2nd respondent together. The police have, therefore, deleted their names from the case and from the conclusions of the statutory investigation, it was only the husband that can be accused of any culpable conduct during the incident on 18-03-2009 and not the petitioners herein. There is no material on record to show that the 2nd respondent had challenged the exclusion of the petitioners from the criminal case, in any manner, in any proceedings thereafter or to show that the 2nd respondent had ﬁled any private complaint against the petitioners in respect of the incident before a competent criminal Court. The conclusions of the investigating agency in C.C. No.878 of 2010, therefore, further support the claims of the petitioners herein about their being never involved in the matrimonial life of the 2nd respondent herein. 9. Even otherwise, the reliefs claimed in the domestic violence case in respect of a residential order or return of gold and silver ornaments, clothes, other articles and cash or permanent custody of the elder son of the 2nd respondent or return of dowry or return of the marriage expenses, etc., do not appear to be available against any of the petitioners, though the husband, on proof of the allegations made in the domestic violence case, may be susceptible to such reliefs. The interim relief for maintenance to the 2nd respondent and her children also cannot be pursued against the petitioners and it is only the protection order and the request for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- that can be considered to concern the petitioners in any manner, if any allegations of domestic violence by them were to be proved during the enquiry. However, as already stated, the alleged incident in 1995 is uncorroborated by any material and the alleged visits by the petitioners to the separate residence of the 2nd respondent and her husband or their instigation to the husband in respect of the marital life of the couple were totally unspeciﬁc, vague and general in nature without mentioning any speciﬁc incident on any speciﬁc date, involving any speciﬁc respondent to the domestic violence case. The only incident that was alleged to have happened on 18-03-2009 was disbelieved by the independent statutory investigating agency, which deleted all the petitioners from further criminal proceedings. Under the circumstances, the petitioners probably cannot be considered to be possibly liable in any manner to the reliefs of protection order or compensation as well and as such, continuance of the domestic violence case against them does not appear to be called for under the circumstances. 10. However, it should be made clear that any observations made in this order are conﬁned to consideration of the maintainability of the case against the petitioners only and shall have no bearing on the determination of the domestic violence case between the 2nd respondent and her husband by the Magistrate on merits in accordance with law on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties. 11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.8 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners are quashed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 07-12-2011 Svv