THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2960 of 2010 (Dated: 03-06-2010) Between: Fauzia Batul and others …Petitioners A n d State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2960 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: The respondents 2 to 5 in D.V.C.No.12 of 2010 on the file of I Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are the petitioners herein. Admittedly, there is domestic relationship between the petitioners and the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent gave report to the protection officer against her husband and family members of her husband alleging playing fraud on her suppressing two previous marriages of her husband, harassment, taking away of her articles and dowry etc. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that unnecessarily all the family members are roped in by the 1st respondent in the domestic violence case and that the police after investigation in crime relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, deleted the petitioners herein and filed charge sheet against husband only. No copy of the said charge sheet is filed. In any event, domestic liability is different from criminal liability. Reliefs in domestic violence case and result in criminal case are entirely different. Both the cases should be dealt with and decided on separate footing, having regard to objects and reasons of different enactment under which those cases are filed. Scope of enquiry in domestic violence case is entirely different from scope of enquiry in a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC. So it cannot be said that since the petitioners are deleted from the criminal case they are entitled for relief even from the domestic violence case. In the present domestic violence case specific relief of compensation is claimed as against the petitioners also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are unnecessary parties in domestic violence case and they were impleaded to harass them. At any rate, presence of the respondents 2 to 5 who are the petitioners herein may not be strictly necessary on every date of adjournment in the lower court in case they are represented by an Advocate. So I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in so far as the petitioners are concerned. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Presence of the petitioners 1 to 4 who are respondents 2 to 5 in DVC No.12 of 2010 in the lower court on every date of adjournment is dispensed with in case they are represented by an Advocate in the lower court except on the dates when they intend to give evidence and on the date of judgment. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt.03.06.2010 TSNR