IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1424 of 2010 Between: Bollojula Sreenivas & 5 others .. Petitioners AND Bollojula Dhana Lakshmi & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1424 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri G. Sudheer, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Smt. V. Poorna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the third respondent. The second respondent, the Protection Officer, is only a proforma party and though the first respondent is represented by a counsel, there is no representation on the last occasion or this occasion in spite of the matter being posted for orders and, hence, the petition is being disposed of on merits. 2. The complaint of the first respondent to the Protection Officer resulted in the Domestic Incident Report, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in respect of all the petitioners. In the petition to the Protection Officer, the first respondent stated that she was married to the first petitioner herein on 24.01.1999 at which time, cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, 25 sovereigns of gold and a house site of 30 gadis was given as dowry. The matrimonial life was stated to have been led at Chirala for three years and the first respondent alleged that the husband and parents-in-law treated her cruelly and harassed her to bring more dowry. Later, she was shifted to Kandukur for six years, where also the husband was stated to have wasted the entire money and to have developed illicit intimacy with various girls and to have threatened the first respondent to be burnt with acid. Later, she was claimed to have been taken to Kurnool by the younger brother of the father-in-law, where also she was harassed and attributing illicit intimacy to her, a divorce case was filed in Kurnool Court. When she returned to her parents’ house also, a kidnap case was foisted against her and, hence, she sought for protection. In the Domestic Incident Report filed in the prescribed format, there were corresponding tick marks while seeking for various reliefs. 3. The petitioners contend herein that a boy was born out of the wedlock between the first petitioner and the first respondent and it was alleged that the first respondent was leaving the first petitioner at frequent intervals on the pretext of visiting her mother. The marital life at Kurnool and later at Kandukur was stated to have ended on 17.11.2007, when the first respondent left the marital home with cash, gold and clothes without informing the first petitioner. She was found to have developed illicit intimacy with Survepalli Brahmanandam and went to Bangalore to stay with him. The report given by the first petitioner to the Two Town Police Station, Kurnool, in Crime No.290 of 2007 was closed on her being found at Bangalore. The first petitioner was forced to file O.P.No. 89 of 2007 for divorce against the first respondent and her paramour and an ex parte decree of divorce, after personal service of notices on the respondents therein, was granted on 03.11.2008 which had become final. When the first respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the mother of the first petitioner and the petitioners, the police dropped the case against petitioners 3 to 6 herein and filed the charge sheet only against the husband and the parents- in-law. The first respondent filed the complaint before the Protection Officer again and the case does not disclose any basis or material to take cognizance against petitioners 3 to 6. The allegations are vague without any specific incident and, therefore, the petitioners desired the further proceedings in the domestic violence case to be quashed against them. 4. The point for consideration is whether the continuance of the domestic violence case against the petitioners has to be terminated in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. 5. The copy of C.C.No.494 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur, filed by the petitioners, shows that the first respondent herein initiated the criminal proceedings with her complaint to the police against all the petitioners and B. Rajya Laxhmi, mother of the first petitioner, and the statutory Investigating Agency, after independent investigation, found material only to proceed against the husband and the parents-in-law and did not find any evidence against the petitioners 3 to 6 herein. The allegations in the criminal case are more or less in respect of the same events that led to the domestic violence case. While the copy of the decree in Marriage O.P.No.89 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool, dated 03.12.2008, shows that the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent has been dissolved by the Court much prior to the initiation of the domestic violence proceedings, Form-III filed by the Protection Officer, containing affirmation on oath by the first respondent, made a specific reference to the acts of the first petitioner only. While the tick marks in Forms-I and II lead to no specific allegations against any of the petitioners, the petitioners 4 to 6 are not stated to be any way related to the first petitioner and the first respondent. Though the third petitioner is admitted to be the brother of the second petitioner, the very addresses given in the domestic violence case show that the third petitioner is residing else where and he was not alleged, even by the complaint of the first respondent to the Protection Officer, to have lived at any point of time in the shared household in domestic relationship along with couple. The only reference to the third petitioner in the complaint of the first respondent was that the brother of her father-in-law made her believe about the first petitioner giving up all his vices and took her to Kurnool. The cruelty and harassment meted out to the first respondent at Kurnool was again stated to be by the first petitioner and there was absolutely no allegation of the third petitioner being involved in any such culpable conduct in any manner directly or indirectly. Any link between petitioners 3 to 6 and the alleged acts of domestic violence cannot even be remotely presumed. Under the circumstances, continuance of the domestic violence case against them will be an absolute travesty of justice. 6. Insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, as already stated, the primary emphasis of all the allegations is against the first petitioner only and the complaint from the first respondent to the Protection Officer also specifically alleged the parents-in-law also to be part of the process of harassment, which allegation found corroboration from the conclusions of the police in filing the charge sheet in C.C.No.494 of 2008. As this Court cannot convert itself into a fact finding authority in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioners 1 and 2 has to be enquired into and determined by the learned Magistrate after a full-fledged enquiry in the domestic violence case and not herein. Leaving the determination of the domestic violence case insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned in the trial Court, the petition has to succeed to the extent of the petitioners 3 to 6. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1 and 2 and is allowed in respect of petitioners 3 to 6 and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.17 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur, Prakasam District, are quashed against the petitioners 3 to 6. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1424 of 2010 Date: 28th December, 2011 KL