IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4490 of 2009 Between: Dr.A. Rajani and others ... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 to 6 a n d The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5 who are the respondents 2 to 6 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kandukur, seek quashing of proceedings in the domestic violence case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The first respondent in D.V.C. is not the petitioner before this Court. The first petitioner is stated to be the second wife of the first respondent in D.V.C. The petitioners 2 and 3 are parents-in- law of the second respondent/aggrieved party. The petitioners 4 and 5 are parents of the first petitioner. In D.V.C., the second respondent/aggrieved party claimed reliefs of protection under Section 18, residence under Section 19, monitory relief under Section 20 as well as compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). In so far as reliefs of maintenance and residence are concerned, they can be granted as against the husband only and not as against other relations of the husband. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners 4 and 5 are not relations of husband of the second respondent. Though they are not cognate relations of the second respondent’s husband, due to the alleged second marriage of the second respondent’s husband with the first petitioner, they became relations in that family. It is further contended that the petitioners 4 and 5 had absolutely no role to play in the alleged harassment of the second respondent. There is no dispute that the second respondent filed a criminal case against her husband and others alleging offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that truth or otherwise of allegations in the case cannot be gone into and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. At any rate, proceedings under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act are purely civil proceedings, but enquired by criminal Court by application of procedure prescribed by Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, presence of all the petitioners who are all Doctors may not be necessary for proceeding with enquiry in the domestic violence case. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioners 1 to 5 who are the respondents 2 to 6 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2008 during enquiry of the case, except on the date of delivery of order therein. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 03, 2010. PN HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4490 of 2009 September 03, 2010