HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No:8352 OF 2008 Dated: 15.3.2010 Between: 1. Shaik Mustaq and others. ..Petitioners And 1. The State through S.H.O., I Town P.S., Visakhapatnam, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents This Court made the following HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No:8352 OF 2008 ORDER: This Court on 22.12.2008 made the following order: “Issue notice to respondent No.2. There shall be interim stay to the extent of petitioner Nos.2 and 4 to 9 only, as prayed for.” Criminal M.P.No.2380 of 2010 is filed by the vacate petitioner/2nd respondent to vacate the interim stay. Therefore, the matter was listed for admission today. Heard Sri Syed Ahmed Ali, learned Counsel representing the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 and Sri Shasidhar Reddy, learned Counsel representing respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the grounds which had been raised in the present Criminal Petition and would maintain that on the self-same facts, the prosecution had already been launched and the police in fact deleted petitioners No.4,5,6,7,8 and 9 and filed charge sheet as against petitioners 1, 2 and 3 only. Further, the learned Counsel also pointed out the relevant provisions of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 and would maintain that this is grave abuse of process of law. On the contrary, Sri S. Shasidhar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent had taken this Court through the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of the fact that the aspects to be decided in the Domestic Violence Act 2005 being different in nature and they stand to be on different footing, mere fact that the deletion of names of some of the petitioners in the charge sheet by itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also would submit that in the light of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Heard the counsel. It is the case of the petitioners that accused No.1 is the husband, accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father in law and mother in law whereas accused Nos.4 to 8 are the brothers in law and sisters in law whereas accused No.9 is the relative of accused No.3. It is also the case of the petitioners that on the complaint filed by the defacto- complainant to the Project Director District Women and Child Development Agency, Ranga Reddy District, a case had been registered under the Domestic Violence Act 2005 for the offence under Section 9 (b) & 37 (2) of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act vide D.V.C.No.13 of 2008 and summons were issued to accused Nos.1 to 9 to appear before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendernagar, Rangareddy District on 27.11.2008 and the same is reposted to 8.12.2008. It is further stated that the marriage of the defacto-complainant with accused No.1 was celebrated on 3.6.2006 at Hyderabad and on the demand of accused Nos.1 to 9 the parents of the defacto-complainant had given 08 tulas of gold, 20 tulas of Silver, Bajaj CT 100 Motor bike, Complete Wooden furniture, copper and brass household articles, clothes all worth of Rs.2,20,000/- and spent Rs.90,000/- towards Dinner at the time of marriage, but within short period of marriage accused Nos.1 to 9 started harassing her passing sarcastic remarks over the Jahez articles mentioning the same as sub standard, and caused physical and mental harassment and finally dragged her out of the house on 16.4.2007 in the early morning at 4 A.M. with a threat to enter the house on compliance of their illegal dowry demands, and on 2.6.2007 the Defacto-complainant having come to know that accused No.1 is performing second marriage to comply their demands, she approached the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and filed a complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.150 of 2007 on 6.7.2008 by the Women Police Station, South Zone, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and 4 of the DP Act r/w Section 34 IPC, in which the concerned police after thorough investigation filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.85 of 2008 against accused Nos.1 to 3 only deleting the names of other accused Nos.4 to 9 and on the filing of the charge sheet on 20.2.2008, the case was taken on file and posted to 17.6.2008. It is further stated that immediately on getting the information of filing of charge sheet by the police against accused Nos.1 to 3 deleting the names of accused Nos.4 to 9 and the case is posted to 17.6.2008, in counter blast to the same, the defacto complainant-respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Project Director, District Women & Child, Development Agency, Ranga Reddy, with the same set of allegations and fabricating incidents against all accused Nos.1 to 9 and praying to summon, try and punish accused Nos.1 to 9 under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 5 of D.P. Act or to send the complaint to W.P.S. South Zone for investigation and report. It is further stated that the defacto- complainant is not claiming any maintenance, custody of child or shelter or any relief under the Domestic Violence Act and she filed the complaint with a prayer to summon, try and punish the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9 under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 5 DP Act or to send the complaint to W.P.S. South Zone for investigation and report, only as a revenge and a counter-blast to the charge sheet filed by the W.P.S. South Zone deleting the names of accused Nos.4 to 9. As the concerned police had already conducted detailed inquiry and investigation and filed charge sheet for the same set of facts and allegations, the complaint of the respondent No.2 again on the self-same facts and allegations is against law and is grave abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. In the counter affidavit by the 2nd respondent, several of the details had been narrated. It is stated in paragraph No.4 that the 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and their marriage took place on 3.6.2005 and as per the demand of the petitioners, the parents of the 2nd respondent provided a huge dowry in the form of gold, silver, motor cycle, furniture and other articles worth Rs.2,20,000/- and a further amount of Rs.90,000/- was spent to perform the marriage in a grand manner as demanded by the petitioners. Further it is averred that the petitioners started abusing the 2nd respondent stating that the dowry was less and the articles were substandard and the 1st petitioner would have got more dowries if he had married some other girl. The petitioners 2 and 3 took away the articles given by the 2nd respondent’s parents and did not allow her to use them. The petitioners 2 and 3 also forced the 2nd respondent to give away her jewellery to the 4th petitioner. The petitioners demanded a further dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent was not provided proper food or clothing and was forced to do all the household work. The 2nd respondent was given food only once in a day. The petitioners 6 and 7 tried to misbehave with the 2nd respondent and heaped verbal abuse of the worst kind upon her. It is further stated that finally in April 2006, the petitioners beat the 2nd respondent and threw her out of the house for not bringing the dowry demanded by them. The 2nd respondent went back to her parents’ house as she did not have any other place to go. The 2nd respondent’s parents with some elders mediated with the petitioners. The petitioners 2 to 5 refused to allow the 2nd respondent into the house if she did not bring the dowry demanded by them. However, after much pleading by the mediators they agreed to allow the 2nd respondent to return to the house. Further it is averred that after the return of the 2nd respondent the abuses of the petitioners were increased in intensity and scale. She was physically and mentally tortured for not bringing the dowry demanded by the petitioners. Finally, on 12.4.2007, petitioners 2 to 5 and 9 began demanding dowry and with the help of petitioners 6 and 7 locked up the 2nd respondent in a room for three days. The electricity supply to the room was disconnected and she was not provided with food. The 2nd respondent was not even allowed to go out to attend nature calls and was forced to attend to them in that room. After three days sensing that the 2nd respondent’s health was failing, the petitioners 2 to 9 dragged her out of the house and threw her out into the street barefooted without even a burqa. They further threatened to kill the 2nd respondent if she did not bring the dowry demanded by them. They further threatened that they will harm the 2nd respondent’s sister if she complained to the police against them. It is also stated that after undergoing much physical, mental and economic abuse, the 2nd respondent finally filed a complaint with the police under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also averred that the police without conducting proper investigation filed charge sheet against petitioners 1,2 and 3 only under section 498-A IPC and the other petitioners were also active participants in abusing her and were also responsible for sending her from her matrimonial home. It is further averred that as she suffered grave and severe abuse in the hands of the petitioners in a shared household and they were refusing to support her or let her back into the house hold and further they were making threats against her and her family, she also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 praying for the various reliefs under Sections 18,19,20 and 22. It is further averred in the counter that the 2nd respondent filed the complaints to the police as the petitioners physically, mentally and economically abused her for not bringing the dowry demanded by them. However, it is not true and correct to say that the police conducted a thorough and detailed investigation and deleted the names of petitioners 4 to 9 from the charge sheet. It is submitted that the police without conducting proper investigation hastily filed charge sheet against petitioners 1,2 and 3 only under Section 498-A IPC. The other petitioners were also active participants in abusing her and were also responsible for barring her from her matrimonial home. It is further averred that the averments in paragraph No.3 of the petitioners’ affidavit that the case under the complaint to the 1st respondent was given only as counterblast to the charge sheet filed by the police deleting the names of petitioners 4 to 9 and the allegations are fabricated and false, are not true and correct. It is submitted that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were filed as the petitioners were all active participants. The petitioners 4 to 9 were also active participants in abusing the 2nd respondent and throwing her out of the matrimonial home. Further, they were also threatening the 2nd respondent and her family members. Therefore, they are necessary parties to the Domestic Violence complaint. It is further averred that the prayer of the 2nd respondent’s complaint was only to summon and punish the petitioners under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are not true and correct and are hence denied. The complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed praying for various reliefs under sections 18,19,20 and 22. These reliefs include protection order, maintenance, compensation, and access to the share household. The petitioners’ statement that no relief is claimed is not based on the record and not true and the petitioners are trying to mislead the Court without placing all the facts on record. The very fact that the police filed charge sheet upon the complaint of the 2nd respondent goes to show that there were indeed incidents of violence against the 2nd respondent. There is no dispute that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are members of a shared household. There is no dispute that the 2nd respondent is barred from living in the shared household. Further it is submitted that there is no bar under the Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against maintaining domestic violence complaint on the same facts which constitute an offence under section 498 A IPC. There is no abuse of process of law in the present case. It is reiterated that all the petitioners participated in abusing the 2nd respondent. Further a specific stand had been taken that the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is social welfare legislation and except for certain offences specified, the reliefs sought under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature and this may have to be treated on a different footing. This Court had gone through the material placed before it. It is not a serious controversy that the charge sheet had been filed as against petitioners 1,2 and 3 only. As against other petitioners though on the self-same allegations, a complaint had been made, their names were deleted. It may be that in the light of the provisions of the Act aforesaid, these proceedings may stand likely on a different footing. But however, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that no further grounds had been taken by the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant in this regard. In the light of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Criminal Petition be allowed so far as it relates to petitioners 4,5,6,7,8 and 9. Accordingly, the proceedings in DVC No.13 of 2008 as against petitioners 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are hereby quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ______________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date: 15th March, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No:8352 OF 2008 15.3.2010