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.4026 of 2010 Between: Dakey Gangadhara Rao & 4 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.4026 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Prakash Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Ronald Raju, learned counsel for the second respondent and Smt. V. Poorna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the first respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.8 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, against the petitioners. 3. The petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was filed by the second respondent herein before the learned Magistrate along with her affidavit in Form-III against the petitioners herein alleging that she was married to the first petitioner on 25.05.1997 and had a son and a daughter aged 10 years and 8 years respectively during the wedlock. She claimed that her parents paid Rs.30,000/- as dowry and presented gold jewellery weighing 10 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage. She stated that since about two months after the marriage, the first petitioner herein started subjecting her to torture and harassment for additional dowry and he was taking away the entire salary of the second respondent without providing even for the minimum necessities. The second respondent’s father was providing various amounts required for the maintenance of the second respondent. While the second respondent and the first petitioner stayed in Mothi Nagar, Hyderabad, upto 2001, the first petitioner was beating the second respondent attributing unchastity to her without any basis. The second respondent alleged incidents to have happened in February, 1999, when she was five months pregnant and she alleged further incidents in March, 2002, March 2003 and so on leading to her resignation from her job in June, 2003. She claimed that even her provident fund amount was appropriated by the first petitioner and she was forced to again join a private job by the first petitioner. The second respondent also alleged attempts by the first petitioner to deprive her of a Hero Honda Activa vehicle purchased by her father and to have been severely beaten on 26.11.2008, 24.12.2008, 05.02.2009, etc., the last of the incidents resulting in Crime No.75 of 2009 of Sanath Nagar Police Station. She also alleged that the first petitioner took away her gold jewellery and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- which was kept with the other petitioners and the first petitioner was claimed to be making threatening calls to her after release on bail in Crime No.75 of 2009 when the second respondent was staying with her sister along with the children. The second respondent, therefore, sought for monthly maintenance, refund of dowry and additional dowry, refund of cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, return of gold jewellery, refund of the provident fund amount, compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, prohibition against alienation of the house purchased jointly with the incomes of the second respondent and the first petitioner and legal expenses and costs. 4. The petitioners contend herein that the second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner and the third petitioner is the sister-in-law. The petitioners claimed that the allegations against them are false and petitioners 4 and 5 are distant relatives who have nothing to do with the couple and who reside elsewhere. The statutory procedure was not followed in taking the domestic violence case on file and the second respondent never made a complaint to any authority for 12 years after marriage and the domestic violence case was only intended to harass the husband. The petitioners, therefore, desired that the further proceedings against them be quashed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case have to be discontinued against the petitioners. 6. The addresses given by the second respondent herself in the domestic violence case in her petition and the affidavit show that the husband/the first petitioner is working as Assistant Manager in Mahaveera Scoda Company and resides at Borabanda, Hyderabad, while the second petitioner resides in Putchalalanka Village, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District, and the third petitioner resides in Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad. Petitioners 4 and 5 also reside separately at Peda Amberpet and Malakpet, Hyderabad and they are described as employees. The petitioners 4 and 5 do not bear even the same surname as the first petitioner and even the allegations in the domestic violence case and the affidavit did not allege that at any point of time, any of the petitioners 2 to 5 lived together in a domestic relationship in a shared household with the first petitioner and the second respondent. 7. The allegations against the petitioners 2 to 5 in the domestic violence case were generally about the instigation and abetment by them to the first petitioner except in para 16 of the affidavit in Form-III, wherein the second respondent alleged that the petitioners 2 to 5 used to visit their house very often and instigate the first petitioner to turn violent towards her and give divorce to her. She alleged that petitioners 2 to 5 played a major role in spoiling the brain of the first petitioner and she further claimed that petitioners 2 to 5 used to abuse her by making phone calls to her. The allegations do not specify the dates on which such visits were made or such phone calls were indulged in and there was no reason or motive attributed to any of the petitioners 2 to 5 to so intervene in the marital life of the first petitioner and the second respondent. In none of the incidents, any of the petitioners 2 to 5 were alleged to have physically participated in violating the person of the second respondent and if the second petitioner lives by cultivation, the third petitioner is a house wife and petitioners 4 and 5 are employees living on their own, it is not in tune with the ordinary and natural course of human conduct that they would have indulged in breaking the cordial relationship between the husband and wife for no reason or motive and such vague, omnibus and general allegations against persons unconnected with the marital home of the first petitioner and the second respondent cannot provide any justification for continuance of the legal proceedings against them. 8. Even otherwise, the reliefs claimed in the domestic violence case for grant of monthly maintenance or refund of various amounts or gold jewellery or compensation or prohibition against alienation of the house jointly in the names of the first petitioner and the second respondent or legal expenses and costs could not have been claimed against any of the petitioners 2 to 5 solely on the vague allegation that the cash and gold jewellery were kept in their custody after they were snatched away from the second respondent by the first petitioner. If no relief can be granted in the domestic violence case against petitioners 2 to 5, that is all the more the reason not to burden them with having to defend the domestic violence case in future. 9. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the truth or otherwise of the allegations has to be enquired into by the learned Magistrate on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties on merits in accordance with law and in view of the serious allegations made against the first petitioner, invocation of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, will not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion. While the petition should, therefore, fail in respect of the first petitioner, it should succeed in respect of petitioners 2 to 5. 10. In the result, the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.8 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, are quashed against petitioners 2 to 5 and the Criminal Petition is allowed to that extent and the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4026 of 2010 Date: 28th December, 2011 KL