IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6327 of 2008 Between: Kominani Madhusudan Babu & 5 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.6327 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri A. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against D.V.C.No.3 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Tuni, initiated at the instance of the second respondent herein. 3. The complaint by the second respondent herein to the learned Magistrate made allegations about the parents of the second respondent believing the representation of the petitioners about the first petitioner being the natural son of petitioners 2 and 3, paying a huge dowry in cash and gifts, gold jewellery, etc., and being surprised by the second respondent herein being taken to the house of petitioners 4 and 5, then informing that they are the natural parents of the first petitioner. The second respondent further alleged about indecent behaviour and harassment by respondents 1 and 4 to 6 to her complaint during the stay at the house of petitioners 4 and 5. The 6th respondent therein was alleged to be frequently coming to Hyderabad to pressurize the second respondent to give divorce to the first petitioner. The second respondent further alleged about the events that occurred even during her stay in the United States of America and the incidents that took place after her return from America to India. Ultimately, she claimed to have been brought to her parents’ house after the incident on 17.06.2008, during which she was thrown out of the house. Her grievance, therefore, was about the misrepresentation of the first petitioner being the natural son of petitioners 2 and 3 and the subsequent events that happened since the marriage. 4. After the case was taken on file by the learned Magistrate, the reliefs now sought for are grant of protection, residential order and further orders relating to monetary reliefs. 5. The petitioners herein claimed that it was the second respondent that was harassing them by filing Crime No.99 of 2008 before Tuni Town Police and the second respondent had, in fact, harassed the first petitioner right from the date of marriage due to the first petitioner being a polio affected person. The petitioners further claimed that they are no way concerned with the reliefs claimed by the second respondent and, therefore, desired the further proceedings in the domestic violence case to be quashed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the inherent jurisdiction of this Court should be invoked in favour of any of the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in the domestic violence case. 7. A close perusal of the complaint, filed by the second respondent before the learned Magistrate, shows that the 6th petitioner herein was not alleged to be involved in the representation that the first petitioner herein is the natural son of petitioners 2 and 3 or in receiving cash, jewellery and other gifts as dowry or in receiving family household articles when the second respondent was sent to lead the matrimonial life or during the subsequent specific incidents alleged to have happened between the second respondent and the other petitioners. The alleged pressure by petitioners 1 to 6 to transfer the site at Hyderabad to the first petitioner was a vague and general allegation and that the 6th petitioner, leaving her own occupation and matrimonial home at Bangalore, should be frequently travelling to Hyderabad only to pressurize the second respondent to divorce the first petitioner is unreal and incomprehensible. The petty reasons that led her to pick up quarrels with the second respondent were not elaborated nor were any details given of the specific visits and specific quarrels. The instigation by the 6th petitioner to harass the second respondent was not stated to be due to any reason or for any logic and a close consideration of all the facts alleged together makes it clear that the allegations against the 6th petitioner are unnatural, artificial and do not inspire even prima facie confidence in a judicial mind about the probability of the 6th petitioner being even a remote cause for the matrimonial difficulties of the second respondent. 8. Therefore, insofar as the 6th petitioner is concerned, who is happily married and residing at Bangalore in her matrimonial home, implicating her in these proceedings will be a travesty of justice and, therefore, the further proceedings against her have to be quashed. 9. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, it is true that while the petitioners 1 to 3 reside at Ananthapur, petitioners 4 and 5 reside at Hyderabad, but the relationship between them as natural parents and adopted parents of the first petitioner is not refuted nor is the relationship with petitioners 1 to 5 in dispute. The various allegations of fact made by the second respondent against petitioners 1 to 5 cannot be the subject of any fact finding enquiry in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the same have to be left for determination in accordance with law by the trial Court. The allegations cannot ex facie be dismissed as untrue or unreal without an enquiry. But it is seen from the material on record that the petitioners 2 to 5 are advanced in age and are claimed by Sri A. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel to be facing physical and mental suffering in attending the proceedings before the Criminal Court which are likely to take considerable time before reaching their conclusion. It will be in the interests of justice, therefore, to permit the petitioners 2 to 5 to seek dispensing with their physical presence before the Court during the further proceedings of the domestic violence case which request, if made, shall have to be positively considered by the trial Court except on occasions when their personal presence becomes indispensable and necessary for further proceeding with the case. 10. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed insofar as petitioners 1 to 5 are concerned and is allowed insofar as the 6th petitioner is concerned and further proceedings in D.V.C.No.3 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Tuni, are quashed against the 6th petitioner. The trial Court will hopefully determine the domestic violence case on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of communication of this order. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6327 of 2008 Date: 28th September, 2011 KL