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.13573 of 2010 Between: B. Riyaz Rahiman and 4 others .. Petitioners AND The State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Criminal Petition is directed against the further proceedings in DVC.No.1 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur, Kurnool District against the petitioners. The 2nd respondent gave a report to the Protection Officer alleging that she was married to Muzibur Rahaman eight years earlier at Velpanur village and as per the desire of her husband, her parents paid cash of Rs.50,000/-, 15 tulas of gold and household articles worth Rs.25,000/-. She claimed to be residing at Velpanur with her husband and parents-in-law till recently, giving birth to a son and a daughter during the course of wedlock. She claimed to be subjected to harassment, for getting lesser dowry and not being beautiful, by the husband, parents-in-law and brothers of the husband. Her father Mahaboob Basha was claimed to have got a panchayat conducted by the village elders Potham Ramakrishna Reddy, Musani Maheswara Reddy and others, but in vain. On the day of Ramzan, all the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case were claimed to have necked her out from the house and since then she claimed to be residing at her parent’s house along with her children. She, therefore, desired that she be protected from all the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case and her marital home be restored. She claimed that maintenance may be provided to her and her children from her husband as he has his own business, Ac.10.00 of land and three houses. She sought for allotment of one house to her and her children. The Domestic Violence report filed by the Protection Officer on the said complaint was taken cognizance by the Magistrate against the husband, parents-in-law and the petitioners herein who are brothers of the husband. The petitioners claimed that the 1st petitioner is a soldier, while the 4th petitioner is a BSF Jawan, both of them dedicating their lives in the service of the mother land staying far away from home. The 3rd and 5th petitioners are claimed to be students doing their M.B.A. and B.E. courses respectively, while the 2nd petitioner is claimed to be a mason. The petitioners claimed that they have no concern with the family affairs of the 2nd respondent and her husband and never involved themselves in the marital life of the 2nd respondent. They denied any allegations made against them in the Domestic Violence Case and claimed to have been falsely implicated. They, therefore, desired that the further proceedings against them be quashed. Sri D. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Vengala Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent are heard. Sri D. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel, produced during the course of hearing, the copies of identity card of the 1st petitioner, address proof of the 1st petitioner and identity card of the 4th petitioner to show that the petitioners 1 and 4, who are serving in Army and BSF, are far away from home since long. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case have to be discontinued against the petitioners herein? The complaint by the 2nd respondent to the Protection Officer clearly alleged that since the marriage, the 2nd respondent was residing at Velpanur along with her husband and parents-in-law till recently and had two children out of their wedlock aged 7 and 4 years respectively. The complaint did not specify that the petitioners 1 to 5 were also residing together with the husband and parents-in- law of the 2nd respondent. It is of course stated generally that since the marriage, the petitioners also were together with the husband and the parents-in-law in harassing her accusing to have brought lesser dowry and to be not beautiful, but no specific instances of such harassment against any of the petitioners were narrated in the complaint. The Panchayat said to have been held by the village elders Potham Ramakrishna Reddy and Musani Maheswara Reddy at the instance of the father of the 2nd respondent was also not specified to be on a particular date or at a particular place and it is not clear whether the petitioners also were part of the said Panchayat. While the harassment was again claimed to have been commenced after the Panchayat, an incident was alleged to have happened on Ramzan day involving the husband, parents-in-law and the petitioners. Even while referring to the brothers of the husband as involved in the earlier harassment or in the incident on Ramzan festival day, the 2nd respondent did not name them specifically and she did not identify which of the five brothers of her husband indulged in, which overt act against her at any point of time. Whether the petitioners 1 and 4, who are serving in Army and Border Security Force respectively, were at Velpanur on Ramzan day prior to the complaint is not known. While the petitioners 3 and 5, who are students were also not stated clearly to be studying at the native place of the parties itself, it might not have been so as the 3rd petitioner is a student of MBA and 5th petitioner is a student of B.E. with no claim being made of such colleges of Business Administration and Engineering being available at Velpanur or nearby. The presence of petitioners 1 and 3 to 5 during any incidents prior to the complaint including on Ramzan day, therefore, could not have been considered to be even remotely probable and no complaint in writing appears to be made to any public authority about the 2nd respondent and her children being ultimately necked out from the house or their being harassed physically and mentally, against any person. The 2nd petitioner, though appeared to be residing in the same house at Velpanur, is stated to be aged only 25 years and is claimed to be living by masonry and there was no positive reason as to why he should indulge in harassing his sister-in-law. The identity card of the 5th petitioner and the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate issued in his favour filed along with the petition apart from Hall Ticket for Osmania University examination probablise that he is a student of an Engineering College at Hyderabad and, therefore, he could not have been physically present at Velpanur to indulge in any acts of domestic violence against the 2nd respondent during the relevant time. The 3rd petitioner is shown by the Hall Ticket for his examination and his identity card to be a student of a College at Bhongir and his physical availability to indulge in the alleged acts of physical and mental harassment against the 2nd respondent also is thus clearly doubtful. By the very nature of the improbability of the allegations against the other petitioners and the absence of any reason for the 2nd petitioner to indulge in any such culpable conduct, the claims against the 2nd petitioner also do not appear to be such as to necessitate continuance of the Domestic Violence Case against him. At any rate, the reliefs claimed in the Domestic Violence Case in respect of residence, maintenance, monetary relief etc., could not have been granted against any of the petitioners and even in respect of protection order, if the petitioners 1 and 4 are working elsewhere and the petitioners 3 and 5 are studying elsewhere and the 2nd petitioner is improbablised to be in any way indulging in any domestic violence acts against the 2nd respondent, ex facie, they cannot be made susceptible to any such relief. In the absence of existence of any prima facie case against any of the petitioners, the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case against them have to be, therefore, terminated. However, it should be made clear that no observation made in this order shall influence the determination of the Domestic Violence Case on merits in accordance with law against the husband and parents-in-law of the 2nd respondent and subject to that caveat, the Criminal Petition should be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the further proceedings in DVC.No.1 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur, Kurnool District are quashed against the petitioners 1 to 5 herein. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 07-12-2011 Ksn