IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2798 OF 2009 Between: Malaratua Bhupesh and others .....PETITIONERS AND Malaratua Bhagya Rekha and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2798 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 5 in D.V.C.No.5 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 herein is the husband of respondent No.1 herein, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein are parents, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 herein are brother and sister of petitioner No.1 herein. Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 took place on 12.08.1998. At the time of marriage, parents of respondent No.1 presented Rs.1,25,000/- (UTI Bond) towards dowry, 20 tolas of gold, Rs.50,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam and sare samans worth Rs.75,000/- to the petitioners herein. It was alleged that petitioner Nos.2 to 5 used to demand respondent No.1 to bring more dowry and presentations. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 used to insult respondent No.1 before her kith and kin, harass her with active support of petitioner Nos.4 and 5. At the time of marriage, petitioner No.1 was working at Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu. Petitioner No.2 was working at Paradeep and petitioner No.4 was working in Chennai. It was alleged that initially they lived happily, later petitioner No.1 got addicted to vices. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 used to invite his friends to the house and insult respondent No.1 in front of them. Parents of petitioner No.1 used to support and encourage him. It was further alleged that petitioner No.1 used to avoid conjugal life. It was further alleged that petitioner No.1, never spared any time with the child adopted by them and he registered a plot in the name of the child by putting respondent No.1 as a guardian. Petitioner No.1 started a business, by putting respondent No.1 as one of the directors of the company, by paying salary of Rs.30,000/-. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 used to move closely with one lady by name Vidhula and also used to bring her to the house. It was alleged that in the month of June, 2008, she found the medical reports, showing petitioner No.1 as HIV positive. When respondent No.1 questioned petitioner No.1, he tried to convince her that the reports does not belong to him and later threatened her. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 used to harass and humiliate respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed this complaint, claiming protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary reliefs under Section 20 for herself and for the child, order for custody of child under Section 21 and compensation to an extent of Rs.40,00,000/- under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no reliefs are sought for against petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein; that the plot is in the name of petitioner No.1 herein; that in order to falsely implicate the petitioners herein, certain reliefs were claimed by respondent No.1; that the petitioners herein have nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 herein/de facto complainant; that therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that respondent No.1 herein was necked out from the share house-hold; that all the petitioners herein were preventing respondent No.1 to enter into the house; that therefore, the reliefs were sought for against all the petitioners herein; that similarly, a relief was sought to appoint an officer for preventing the commission of domestic violence by all the petitioners herein; that therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners herein and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code. The allegations in the application, if taken as true or correct at this stage, made out a prima facie case of the offences alleged, then the question of quashing the proceedings in the application does not arise. 6. The allegation is that respondent No.1 herein was prevented by all the petitioners herein to enter into the shared house-hold bearing No.8-3-20/1 situated at Kasthuri house, Vijayanagar Palace Layout, Peda Waltari, Visakhapatnam, and therefore, she seeks a direction restraining all the petitioners herein from dispossessing her from the above shared house-hold. If the allegation is taken as true and correct, at this stage, petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are interfering with the matrimonial affairs of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 herein. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners herein and the question of quashing the application does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 20, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2798 OF 2009 August 20, 2010