IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7093 of 2008 Between: Saleema and 6 others .. Petitioners AND S. Tabasum Sultana and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor-2nd respondent. The Criminal Petition is with a request to quash the further proceedings in DVC No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, against the petitioners herein. The case was instituted by the 1st respondent herein against her husband Ayub and the petitioners herein by way of a complaint to the Project Director dated 02-08-2008 in which she alleged her husband and the petitioners to have joined together and physically harassed her and abused her in foul language without even giving food. She claimed that she was being threatened to be necked out from the marital home on the ground of her failure to get additional dowry. She further claimed to have been ultimately necked out from the marital home on 24-05-2008 and to be residing at her parents house. On this complaint, proceedings were initiated in DVC No.3 of 2008 by the Project Director against eight accused including Ayub and the present petitioners. In Form-I the Project Director specified about the involvement of the 6th petitioner herein in forcibly showing obscene images to the 1st respondent herein. Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, brought to notice that an ex parte residence order was passed by the Magistrate on 09-09-2008 which was later made absolute on the directions of this Court in Criminal Petition No.7918 of 2010 and that in the final order dated 04-10-2010, the learned Magistrate found that the 1st respondent is entitled to reside in the house for which purpose the residence order is helpful against the attempts by the respondents to the said case to dispossess her. The learned counsel also invited attention to the writ petition by the husband in W.P.No.19409 of 2008 and the complaint given by the 1st petitioner herein to the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Hindupur, in which it was specifically admitted on 13-05-2010 that the 1st and 6th petitioners herein are living with Ayub, the husband of the 1st petitioner in House No.1-3- 133 since 17 years. The learned counsel, therefore, tried to impress upon the Court that there was a consistent course of conduct from the respondents to the DVC to physically and mentally harass the 1st respondent and neck her out of the matrimonial home, which allegations found acceptance from the Magistrate prima facie when the residence order was made absolute. Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited attention to the discrepancy between the earlier petition in which petitioners 5 and 6 herein were alleged to be viewing obscene images on the computer for themselves without any allegation of compelling the 1st respondent herein to look at any such pictures, in contrast with the allegations made in Form-I. A close examination of the entire material on record placed before the Court by the learned counsel for both sides shows that there was absolutely no specific allegation against the 7th petitioner, aged 70 years and residing at Dharmavaram about her involvement in the matrimonial life of Ayub and the 1st respondent herein. The mere fact that she is the aunt of Ayub cannot make her a criminal by relationship unless there is something positively attributable to her to be susceptible to an adverse order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Coming to the petitioners 2 to 4, who are sisters of Ayub, the 2nd petitioner is a resident of Dharmavaram, the 3rd petitioner is a resident of Lepakshi Town and the 4th petitioner is a resident of Anantapur admittedly living at the respective places with their respective families after their marriages and a scanning of all the allegations made from time to time does not show attribution of any specific acts of commission or omission to these three people in the matrimonial discord between Ayub and the 1st respondent. Except that they are related to Ayub as sisters, nothing positive can be discerned to probablise their possible involvement in the events in question. Coming to the 5th petitioner, the only allegation made against him in the complaint at the earlier point of time was about his looking at the obscene images in the computer along with the 6th petitioner in which complaint there was no allegation of the 1st respondent being forced to look at such obscene images or any adverse consequences being faced by the 1st respondent by the petitioners 5 and 6 looking at the obscene pictures through the computer of the 1st respondent. It would be a matter of surmise or conjecture if the allegation in the complaint should be read as leading to consequential harassment of the 1st respondent in any manner in her domestic life. There was no other allegation against the 5th petitioner in the matters of demand for any additional dowry or cash or share in the property etc., specifically, though the general allegation about the involvement of 10 persons of course is there, out of whom only 8 persons were found liable to be involved in the DVC by the Project Director. It is true that exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to nip in the bud any criminal or quasi criminal proceedings is an exceptional remedy taken recourse to in extraordinary circumstances, but when the material on record discloses that there was no positive specific unambiguous allegation against the petitioners 2 to 5 and 7 about any adverse involvement of them in any manner leading to worsening of any relations between the husband and the wife, continuance of the domestic violence case against them forcing on them the ordeal of attending the Court till the conclusion of the proceedings on merits before the trial Court will be a travesty of justice. While there is no guarantee that the proceedings end at the trial level, the petitioners 2 to 5 and 7 have to be, hence, excluded on merits in the absence of any ex facie material to continue them in the DVC and the proceedings against them further have to be ended. Even otherwise, the reliefs sought for in the DVC are also about things which have to be complied with by the husband-Ayub and no expression of opinion is being made in this order about the merits of the rival contentions and the motives of the parties in taking recourse to various litigations. Except the relief of the protection to the 1st respondent to continue to stay in the house in question in which she claimed to reenter with the help of Superintendent of Police on 26-08-2008, petitioners 2 to 5 and 7 cannot obviously be made liable for the other reliefs and even according to the complaint of the 1st petitioner relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, it is the petitioners 1 and 6 and Ayub that were staying in the same house, who could have physically interfered with the 1st respondent and therefore, continuance of proceedings against the husband-A4 and the petitioners 1 and 6 would sufficiently safeguard the rights and interests of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 and 6 and is allowed in respect of the petitioners 2 to 5 and 7 and further proceedings in the DVC No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, are quashed in respect of the petitioners 2 to 5 and 7. The Trial Court hopefully, as requested by Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, will determine the DVC as expeditiously as possible on merits in accordance with law preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of communication of this order. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-09-2011 Ksn