IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.8440 of 2008 Between: Golla Krishna Murthy and another .. Petitioners AND State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent. 2. The criminal petition arises out of the proceedings in D.V.C. No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. The petitioners, who are the parents of the husband of the 2nd respondent, claim that they were not residing at Kurnool at the time of the alleged offences, but were residing in Karnataka State awaiting settlement of retirement benefits of the 1st petitioner who retired from service. The petitioners claimed that false allegations were made for foisting a false case and hence, the further proceedings in the domestic violence case may be quashed against them. 3. The domestic violence case had its origin in the report of the 2nd respondent to the Protection Officer, dated 18-12- 2007, wherein the 2nd respondent had alleged that since the very next day of her marriage with the son of the petitioners on 25-08- 2007, her husband and mother-in-law started abusing and beating her. The 2nd respondent specifically alleged that her parents-in- law and the husband beat her with an electric wire and divested her of her gold during a particular incident and she was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to the harassment by the husband and the parents-in-law. The Protection Officer filed the domestic violence report before the Magistrate seeking reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Voilence Act, 2005 against not only the husband but also his parents. 4. The point for consideration herein is whether the material on record justifies the quashing of further proceedings against the petitioners herein ? 5. Point: Sri Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to notice that in C.C. No.225 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, the petitioners and also the husband of the 2nd respondent were acquitted of the offences alleged against them under Sections 498-A and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A perusal of the judgment shows that the learned Magistrate, on scanning the oral and documentary evidence placed before him regarding the allegations made primarily by the 2nd respondent herein, was of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of severe contradictions between the prosecution witnesses on the material facts, more so due to the inconsistency in the statements of P.W.1 from time to time. However, there was no positive conclusion even by the criminal Court that the case was false and the standard of proof in criminal and civil proceedings being what it is, failure to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt cannot be equated to impossibility of probablising such allegations on broad human probabilities, which is the standard to be adopted in civil cases. 6. However, irrespective of the result of the criminal case, it is well settled that the judgment of a criminal Court is neither res judicata nor estoppel in civil proceedings, though it may have a persuasive purpose in corroboration with the circumstances arising out of the oral and documentary evidence that is placed by the parties before the Court even in the civil proceedings. But such an opinion is a matter that arises at the stage of consideration by the trial Court after the evidence of the parties and not in a restricted enquiry in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Exercise of inherent powers under the said provision by the High Court arises only if, ex facie, the proceeding is not maintainable against the concerned. 7. The relationship between the parties not being in dispute and the allegations of the 2nd respondent against the petitioners and also her husband being serious and grievous requiring a fact finding enquiry by the trial Court, exercise of any inherent jurisdiction by this Court will not be in the interests of justice. 8. However, the parents/petitioners are said to be advanced in age and to be facing difficulty in being physically present before the Court on all dates of hearing, which is imposing economical, physical and mental burden on them. If it were so, they can approach the trial Court with a request to dispense with their personal physical presence before the Court on the dates of hearing, which request can be positively considered. 9. Therefore, the criminal petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. But if the petitioners are so advised and so desire, they can approach the trial Court with a request to dispense with their personal physical presence before the Court on all future dates of hearing except on the dates when their physical attendance is indispensable and necessary for further progress in the case. If such a request were to be made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-10-2011 Svv