IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.3518 of 2009 Between: Sikinam Veereswara Rao and 7 others .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented By its Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri B. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. M. Radhika, learned counsel, representing Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent. The Criminal Petition desires further proceedings in DVC.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, to be quashed against the petitioners in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3rd petitioner is no more and consequently, the Domestic Violence Case against him stood abated. Therefore, the matter has to be left for appropriate recording of that fact by the trial Court. Insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has been fair enough to concede that the specific reliefs sought for in the Domestic Violence Case may have to be enquired into on merits by the trial Court and may not be the subject of interim intervention prematurely. That leaves the consideration of the claims herein in respect of the petitioners 2 and 4 to 8 only. The Domestic Violence Case was initiated by the report of the 2nd respondent to the Protection Officer alleging that since her marriage with the 1st petitioner in May or July, 1999 at which time cash, and gold jewellary were given as dowry, the husband and his family members were harassing her on the ground of her having no education or money. They were demanding her to divorce the 1st petitioner and she claimed that her parents were forced to purchase household articles worth Rs.10,000/- later. She alleged further incidents that happened when she was three months pregnant in 2002, after delivery of a male child in September, 2002 etc., and the petitioners were alleged to have extracted Rs.20,000/- more from the father of the 2nd respondent for allowing the return of the 2nd respondent and her son to the matrimonial home. She further alleged acts of physical and mental harassment including during Dasara 2004, December, 2004 and Sankranthi, 2005 etc., and she claimed to have been necked out after Sankranthi, 2005. While she was again taken back by the husband, she alleged all the petitioners to have further harassed her for additional dowry and to have attempted to kill her during Sankranthi, 2008. The house owner was claimed to have saved her and sent for treatment. She alleged that due to various incidents, she is leading a sick life at her parents’ house with no means for her maintenance or her son’s studies. She further claimed that though she gave a report against all the petitioners to the Women Police Station, her husband was alone prosecuted by filing the charge sheet by deleting the names of others by the police, against which she complained to the Superintendent of Police. She, therefore, claimed maintenance for herself and her son, expenses for education of her son and medical expenses for herself from her husband’s salary towards maintenance and also a share in the properties of her husband for herself and her son. She further sought for protection for herself and her son. The Domestic Violence report by the Protection Officer on such complaint resulted in the Magistrate taking cognizance of the Domestic Violence Case against all the petitioners. The petitioners claimed herein that the case instituted by the 2nd respondent under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code was investigated into independently by the police and only the husband was prosecuted before the Criminal Court. Filing of Domestic Violence Case on the same set of allegations is nothing abuse of judicial process and the petitioners 4 to 8 are staying far away since ten years. Petitioners 2 and 3 are unable even to move at their old age and they have nothing to do with the allegations in the case and did not commit any offence under the provisions of the special statute. As they are not susceptible to any reliefs, they desired the further proceedings to be quashed. As already stated, the point for consideration is the liability of the petitioners 2 and 4 to 8 to be further proceeded with in the Domestic Violence Case. It is seen from the material papers that the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate was referred to the police and was investigated into by the independent statutory agency, which found that there was absence of any evidence against the petitioners 2 to 8 herein whose names were, hence, deleted from the final report/charge sheet filed by the police against the 1st petitioner/the 1st accused only. The private complaint shows that all the events alleged therein are the same as alleged in the Domestic Violence Case and it is also seen that the allegations in the petition under Section 12 of the special statute attempted to attribute more serious acts of commission to the petitioners 2 to 8 against the physical person of the 2nd respondent, which were not specified in the private complaint that led to the criminal prosecution. For example, the alleged attempt to kill during Sankranthi, 2008 finds no specific reference in the private complaint. The copy of the maintenance case filed by the 2nd respondent and her minor son against the 1st petitioner herein of course contained identical allegations as made in the Domestic Violence Case, but the improvements made in the version of the 2nd respondent between the private complaint and the Domestic Violence Case cannot go unnoticed. The report of the Protection Officer in Form-I itself shows that the respondents 4 to 8 are residing at different places than the residence of the petitioners 1 to 3 and the formal report did not specifically refer to the various acts of domestic violence alleged in the petition of the 2nd respondent except the receipt of dowry prior to marriage in 1999. The reliefs sought for in the Domestic Violence Case are available only against the 1st petitioner, if the allegations of the 2nd respondent are true in respect of maintenance, education, medical expenses and a share in the properties and it may be only in respect of the protection sought for by the 2nd respondent and her son that the other petitioners may be relevant in view of various allegations made by the 2nd respondent from time to time. However, the shared household or the matrimonial home of the 2nd respondent in which the petitioners 1 to 3 were residing is at Karampudi and any specific prohibition against the petitioners 4 to 8 against committing any acts of domestic violence does not appear to be practically required or called for. The allegations of the alleged visits by the petitioners 4 to 8 to the shared household at different times are easy to make and difficult to refute and the self-serving and interested statements of the 2nd respondent in this regard found to be not actionable by the independent statutory investigating agency may not form a reasonable basis for further burdening them with the liability to answer the Domestic Violence Case. Either due to the nature of reliefs claimed or due to the result of the criminal proceedings or due to the avocation and residence of the petitioners 4 to 8 at different places, continuance of the Domestic Violence Case against them may be unreasonable and unjust. The petitioners 4 to 6, the sisters of the 1st petitioner, were happily married and living with their families and would have, in the ordinary and natural course of human events, no role to play in the matrimonial life of their brother. Under the circumstances, the proceedings against them have to be terminated. However, insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the mother is admittedly residing with her son in the shared household and she may be susceptible to the protection orders, if the 2nd respondent is able to prove her allegations in the Domestic Violence Case. Any fact finding enquiry is not within the province of this court in this restricted enquiry and hence, the claims against the 2nd petitioner have to be left to be determined by the trial Court. However, in view of her age being about 67 years as of now according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, she can be permitted to request the trial Court appropriately for dispensing with her physical presence on all future dates of hearing except when such presence is absolutely indispensable for further progress of the case. In the event of her making such a request, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as no longer necessary in respect of the 3rd petitioner, who is stated to be no more and also in respect of petitioners 1 and 2, but, it is allowed in respect of petitioners 4 to 8 and the further proceedings in DVC.No.4 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur are quashed against the petitioners 4 to 8. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-11-2011 Ksn