IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.2692 of 2010 Between: Karri Durga @ Durga Prasad … Petitioner/A.1 And: The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.2692 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in DVC No.5 of 2009 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-A.1 and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She gave a complaint to the Protection Officer, Ranga Reddy district, based on which DVC No.5 of 2009 was taken cognizance by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. It is not disputed that the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the same learned Magistrate alleging the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and the same was referred to the police and after investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in CC No.155 of 2009. According to the complainant, her marriage with the petitioner took place on 20.06.2006 and at the time of the marriage, her parents gave two lakhs and also gold, besides fixed deposit for three lakhs and that subsequent to the marriage, she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment over a demand for additional dowry. She also alleges that the petitioner was never caring for her or looking after her welfare and so, she had to join in a private bank on a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month in September 2006. She further alleges that the petitioner was always persistent in his demand for additional dowry and was demanding the complainant to meet the household expenses with her salary income. She further alleges that as the petitioner forced her to stay way from him, she had to put up in a hostel from July 2007 to December 2007 and even thereafter, the petitioner continued with his old ways. The 2nd respondent- complainant further alleges that the petitioner wanted a house loan to be arranged by the complainant’s father for which he did not agree and it resulted in further harassment. It is further alleged that on 03.05.2008 at 9.30 p.m. the petitioner beat her for her failure to bring money from her parents and the house owners came to her rescue and her mother and brother came at 10.30 p.m. and prevented her from committing suicide. Ever since, the 2nd respondent is staying with her parents and she therefore sought protection from the petitioner and his parents and various other reliefs under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. 4. The petitioner seeks to quash all further proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act on the ground that the 2nd respondent has already given a complaint pertaining to the same allegations, based on which, CC No.155 of 2009 was filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally and the proceedings in DVC No.5 of 2009 amounts to double jeopardy. 5. It is to be noted that the facts constituting basis for the criminal complaint in CC No.155 of 2009 and the proceedings in DVC No.5 of 2009 may be the same, but the nature of the reliefs sought in both the proceedings are totally different. In CC No.155 of 2009, the 2nd respondent is seeking prosecution of the petitioner and others for specific alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. In DVC No.5 of 2009, she is seeking various reliefs, including grant of protection against the petitioner and grant of compensation or damages etc. The proceedings in CC No.155 of 2009 and DVC No.5 of 2009 do not over lap nor do they amount to any double jeopardy. The nature of the proceedings in both the matters are different. The scope of enquiry in both matters is not the same and the evidence that may have to be adduced is also not the same and the reliefs sought are also different. The same set of facts and circumstances may give rise to cause of action in both criminal, civil or matrimonial proceedings. When the law provides for a variety of remedies for redressal of the grievances, it is open to the victim or aggrieved person to avail all those remedies permissible under law, even if the basic facts giving rise to different causes of action may be the same. Simply because, the 2nd respondent has previously filed a complaint, which is now pending before the Court in CC No.155 of 2009, further proceedings in DVC No.5 of 2009 cannot be quashed on the ground that there is any over lapping or it amounts to double jeopardy. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash all further proceedings in DVC No.5 of 2009. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.11.2010 bss