IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6137 of 2010 Between: B. Subba Reddy and 2 others .. Petitioners AND The State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri V.R. Avula, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent. The Criminal Petition is in challenge to the further proceedings in DVC.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur, Kurnool against the petitioners herein and the husband of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners contend that after the marriage of the 2nd respondent with the son of petitioners 1 and 2 on 05-05-1996, the 2nd respondent got Crime No.110 of 2007 registered in Atmakur police station on the alleged offences under Sections 323 and 498- A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code leading to C.C.No.157 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. Then the 2nd respondent also got initiated the Domestic Violence Case and it is for the husband to provide residence and maintenance to the wife and not the petitioners herein who are parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent. The alleged harassment physically and mentally for additional dowry is false. The Domestic Violence Case was initiated on the report of the 2nd respondent on 05-02-2009 to the Project Director, in which it was specifically alleged that gold and cash were given at the time of marriage solemnized on 05-05-1996, apart from motorbike and household articles, but still the mother-in-law harassed the daughter-in-law mentally. It was also specifically alleged that her husband, brother-in-law and parents-in-law obtained a letter after physical and mental harassment from the 2nd respondent and even a Panchayat held by elders was of no avail not only against the husband but also against the present petitioners who demanded that she should give it in writing that she is agreeable for divorce. On verifying the allegations, the Protection Officer filed a domestic violence report against the husband and also the petitioners herein, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. While considering whether the proceedings against the petitioners can prematurely end as requested by them, it is to be noted that when specific allegations of fact were made against them by the 2nd respondent since inception and when such allegations were made against the petitioners herein even in the criminal proceedings leading to C.C.No.157 of 2007, the truth or otherwise of such allegations needs to be enquired into by the trial Court on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it by the parties. Any fact finding enquiry is not appropriate or just in this summary proceedings for consideration of any call for exercise of the inherent power by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Protection Officer’s report also found that the husband and the present petitioners were part of the harassment of the 2nd respondent herein and similar was the conclusion of the statutory investigating agency in the criminal case. While not expressing any opinion on the acceptability or otherwise of the opinion of the police or the Protection Officer against the petitioners, which exercise has to be done by the trial Court, the present case does not appear to be a fit case where the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked to stop the Domestic Violence Case in the middle. However, the petitioners 1 and 2 are stated to be advanced in age and the petitioners 1 to 3 are claimed to be suffering monetary, physical and mental discomfort in being compelled to attend on all future dates of hearing in the domestic violence case primarily involving the discord between the wife and the husband. If the petitioners so desire and are so advised, they can make an appropriate request before the trial Court for dispensing with their personal presence, which can be considered by the trial Court accordingly. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. But, the petitioners, if they so desire and are so advised, can make an appropriate request to the trial Court for dispensing with their personal presence before the Court on all future dates of hearing except when their presence is absolutely indispensable and necessary for further progress of the case, and if such a request were to be made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-10-2011 Ksn