IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5137 of 2010 Between: M.A. Aleem & 7 others .. Petitioners AND The State of A.P. & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5137 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Syed Khadar Mastan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the first respondent. Though the second respondent/petitioner in D.V.C.No.7 of 2010 was personally served with the notice of the petition, she did not enter appearance before this Court in person or through counsel. 2. The second respondent herein gave a report to the Protection Officer on 16.11.2009 alleging that she was married to the first petitioner on 27.04.2008 at which time her parents have paid cash of Rs.50,000/-, 4 tulas of gold, household articles and utensils. She claimed that she was looked after well by the first petitioner for about a month after the marriage and after the same, the petitioners 1 to 6 joined together to demand an additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and started harassing the second respondent physically and mentally. The petitioners 7 and 8 also were claimed to have joined them later and all the petitioners were alleged to be abusing her in filthy language and beating her. When the second respondent brought Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents due to the harassment by the petitioners, the petitioners were still demanding another Rs.2,00,000/- and necked out the second respondent on 22.01.2009. As efforts for reconciliation failed and as the second respondent suspected her husband to have married again and is expecting danger to her life, she gave the report requesting for protection from the petitioners herein and also a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and return of Jahez articles. 3. The Protection Officer filed a domestic violence report which was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, in D.V.C.No.7 of 2010 against all the petitioners. 4. The material papers filed by the petitioners further show that the second respondent herein also gave a report to the police resulting in Crime No.222 of 2009 of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station against petitioners 1 to 6 herein. The allegations in the First Information Report show that the second respondent complained only against the petitioners 1 to 6 and not against petitioners 7 and 8 in the criminal proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioners 1 to 6 only. 5. The petitioners 1 to 8 seek quashing of the proceedings against them in the domestic violence case contending that even according to the second respondent, the 7th petitioner is residing separately and the petitioners 7 and 8 have nothing to do with the marital life of the second respondent. They also contended that in the absence of any specific overt acts being alleged against any of the petitioners, the domestic violence case is not maintainable and when the petitioners 1 to 6 were already prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pursuing the domestic violence case on the same set of facts is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petitioners desire that the further proceedings against them be quashed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings against the petitioners in the domestic violence case need to be discontinued. 7. The domestic violence report filed by the Protection Officer mentioned in Form-I the address of all the petitioners to be the same which was not even the claim of the second respondent in her case and the report of the second respondent to the Protection Officer itself clearly mentioned that the third petitioner was already married and the 6th petitioner is her husband. The report also specifically alleged about the 8th petitioner being an employee in Nampally Court and he is the son-in-law of the maternal uncle of the first petitioner obviously living elsewhere. The complaint from the second respondent to the Protection Officer also specifically stated about the 7th petitioner to be residing separately. While the domestic violence report of the Protection Officer showing the petitioners 3 and 6 to 8 also as residents of the same house may show the quality of verification done by the Protection Officer before filing the domestic violence report before the learned Magistrate to be not credible or satisfactory, even otherwise, the married sister of the first petitioner living with her husband at her husband’s place is but natural. The 3rd petitioner and the 6th petitioner were stated herein to be residing at Nagar Kurnool of Mahabubnagar District. While the separate residence of petitioners 7 and 8 is not in dispute, the petitioners 3 and 6 to 8 cannot, therefore, be considered to be living in a shared household in a domestic relationship with the second respondent and the first petitioner at any point of time. The petition by the second respondent to the Protection Officer alleging that the petitioners 7 and 8 residing elsewhere and leading their own lives were coming to the matrimonial home only to abuse the second respondent in filthy language and to beat her and demanding money appears patently artificial and unnatural. So was the allegation against the petitioners 3 and 6 living elsewhere in Mahabubnagar District, while the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 are living at Owaisinagar, Hyderabad. The petitioners 3 and 6 coming all the way from Nagar Kurnool to Hyderabad only to harass the second respondent also does not appear natural. The reliefs claimed by the second respondent in the domestic violence case are a protection order and also a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from return of Jahez articles. The return of Jahez articles or the payment of compensation or protection order could only have been against the persons who can be claimed to have lived in the domestic relationship in the shared household with the second respondent and the first petitioner at any point of time and not against others. In that view of the matter ex facie, there appears no relief which could have been obtained from petitioners 3 and 6 to 8 by the second respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The further continuance of the proceedings against them under such circumstances will be a travesty of justice and the inherent powers of this Court should be, accordingly, invoked. 8. Insofar as the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 are concerned, the 4th petitioner is stated to have left her husband and to be living along with her mother, brother and another sister and the 5th petitioner was stated to be not yet married. The petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 were stated to be living in the same house during the marital life of the second respondent with the first petitioner and as they were living together in a shared household in a domestic relationship and as they may be susceptible to an order of protection or even compensation, if the allegations of the second respondent are found to be true during the enquiry into the domestic violence case, quashing the proceedings at the inception insofar as the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 are concerned will not be in the interests of justice. As this Court cannot convert itself into a fact finding authority in a limited enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the matter has to be left to the learned Magistrate to be determined on merits in accordance with law on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties. 9. Accordingly, the petition has to succeed in respect of petitioners 3 and 6 to 8 and fail in respect of petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5. The Criminal Petition is consequently dismissed in respect of petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 and is allowed in respect of petitioners 3 and 6 to 8 and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.7 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, are quashed against petitioners 3 and 6 to 8 herein. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21st December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5137 of 2010 Date: 21st December, 2011 KL