THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4381 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Subhash Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Smt. V. Purna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/2nd respondent. The Criminal Petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No. 7 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam against the petitioners. The 1st respondent herein presented a complaint to the Protection Officer alleging that she was married to Sri Kattunga Murali Mohan Rao on 27.05.2001 and after marriage, she was dropped at the house of petitioners 2 and 3 at Hyderabad. She alleged that she was mentally harassed by the 3rd petitioner stating that Murali Mohan Rao had illicit intimacy with one Kavitha since prior to the marriage and was residing with her at Secunderabad which was known to everybody. The 1st respondent claimed the 3rd petitioner to have told that Murali Mohana Rao was not willing to marry her and the 1st respondent claimed to have given a complaint to Monda Market Police Station about the same. She claimed dowry to have been paid at the time of her marriage and she also stated that the 2nd petitioner, when questioned by her parents, asked them not to question about Kavitha with whom Murali Mohana Rao was living. The 1st respondent also alleged further that petitioners 4 and 5 and the 3rd petitioner were present when it was decided to have a separate residence for her husband and herself on 13.09.2001. She further stated that her husband was not taking care of herself which was informed to the other family members who did not respond and compelled her to come back to her parents. Even after the birth of a son, the husband or his family members did not take care of them. Therefore, her complaint. The Protection Officer filed a domestic incident report before the Magistrate, which was taken cognizance seeking the reliefs of a protection order, maintenance and compensation against the petitioners herein and others. The petitioners challenge the initiation of the Domestic Violence Case against them contending that they are innocent of the happenings in the marital life of the 1st respondent and her husband. The 1st petitioner is stated to be residing at Vizianagaram while the 2nd accused implicated in the case died on 28.03.2009 but still, was falsely implicated. The petitioners claimed that the incidents having happened much prior to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 coming into force, the statute has no application and in any view, the proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code were quashed by the High Court against petitioners 1, 4 and 5 on the same allegations. The petitioners further stated that the 1st respondent was also getting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month as awarded in M.C.No. 34 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam. The petitioners therefore, desired the further proceedings against them to be quashed. The point for consideration is whether the Domestic Violence Case should be discontinued against the petitioners in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. The petitioners filed a copy of the order of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2950 of 2006 dated 24.11.2006 wherein a learned Judge of this Court was considering the request of petitioners 4 and 5 herein to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 4 of 2005 on the file of the CID Police Station, Hyderabad. The order shows that the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment made by the 1st respondent herein are identical which resulted in the registration of the crime. The learned Judge found that in Criminal Petitions No. 1624 of 2006 and 3811 of 2005, further proceedings against the other family members of the husband were quashed by orders of this Court dated 08.08.2006 and 19.04.2006 respectively. The learned Judge, after going through the material papers, found that the only allegation against petitioners 4 and 5 herein was that amounts were paid in the presence of the family members of the husband, including petitioners 4 and 5 and that there was a panchayat in the presence of petitioners 4 and 5 in which it was agreed that a separate family may be set up for the 1st respondent and her husband to live. These two allegations were considered by the learned Judge to not constitute any offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and petitioners 4 and 5 herein therefore, succeeded in that Criminal Petition. Similarly in Criminal Petition No. 1624 of 2006, referred to above, the 1st petitioner herein was the petitioner and the order of this Court on 08.08.2006 specifically stated that the 1st petitioner herein, who is a resident of Vizainagaram working as a Hostel Welfare Officer could not have been involved in the offences which were said to have been committed elsewhere and opining that this was a case of sheer abuse of process of Court, the further proceedings against her were quashed by the learned Judge. The allegations in the criminal case being identical as the allegations made herein and nothing further having been alleged or probablised, the continuance of the Domestic Violence Case against petitioners 1, 4 and 5 herein appears to be a traversty of justice. When petitioners 1, 4 and 5 admittedly never lived in a shared house hold in a domestic relationship with the 1st respondent at any point of time, there could have been no occasion for them to commit any acts of domestic violence and as stated by the learned Judges in the other Criminal Petitions, the mere presence of petitioners 1, 4 and 5 during any negotiations between the family members or before elders could not have made them liable for any relief under the special statute. Even otherwise, the reliefs claimed under Domestic Violence Case are reliefs of protection, maintenance and compensation to which on the allegations made by the 1st respondent herein, none of petitioners 1, 4 and 5 could have been made liable and in that view, petitioners 1, 4 and 5 have to succeed. Insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, the proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case show that petitioners 2 and 3 and the husband of the 1st respondent were shown to be residing in the same address. The order in M.C.No. 34 of 2006, dated 26.02.2008 filed by the petitioners shows that even in the maintenance case, it was specially alleged that the 1st respondent was taken to the husband and petitioners 2 and 3 herein after the marriage where she was harassed physically and mentally. The learned Magistrate in his reasoning also referred to the said allegations made against petitioners 2 and 3 herein and the learned Magistrate concluded the husband to be liable to pay maintenance to the wife and the minor son in the light of his neglecting to maintain the wife and the minor child. The specific allegations in the Domestic Violence Case either in the complaint by the 1st respondent to the Protection Officer or in the domestic incident report by the Protection Officer, do not absolve petitioners 2 and 3 of possible implication in the acts of domestic violence within the meaning of the special statute and even if the relief of maintenance could not have been granted against petitioners 2 and 3, in the event of any acts of domestic violence being probablized against petitioners 2 and 3, they may become liable to answer the reliefs claimed for protection under Section 18 and for compensation under Section 22. The truth or otherwise of the allegations against petitioners 2 and 3 should not be enquired into in a restricted proceeding like the present one invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it should be left open to be determined by the Magistrate on merits in accordance with law on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties. This Court in reported precedents did not agree that the Act is purely prospective. While petitioners 2 and 3 therefore, cannot be absolved of the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case in this Petition, Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel represented that petitioners 2 and 3 are aged more than 50 years by now and finding it difficult to attend the Court on all dates of hearing though they are not part of the marital life between the 1st respondent and her husband. In the event of any such difficulty, it is open to petitioners 2 and 3, if they are so advised and so desired, to apply to the learned Magistrate for dispensing with their physical presence on all future dates of hearing except when such physical presence is absolutely necessary for the further progress of the case and in the event of such a request being made, the learned Magistrate shall positively consider the same. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of petitioners 2 and 3 and is allowed in respect of petitioners 1, 4 and 5 and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No. 7 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam are quashed against petitioners 1, 4 and 5. -------------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 28th December 2011 ksld