THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9112 OF 2009 ORDER: The Criminal Petition is directed against the proceedings in D.V.C.No.38 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, against the petitioners. 2. The second respondent herein ﬁled a complaint before the Protection Oﬃcer, dated 09.10.2009 against all the petitioners herein alleging that at the time of her marriage with the ﬁrst petitioner herein on 10.02.2006, an approximate dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid and since 15.01.2006 at the time of settlement of alliance, demands for dowry were put forward. The maternal grand father of the second respondent was stated to have paid cash of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from 400 grams of gold jewellery, silver articles and Rs.1,00,000/- worth diamonds apart from the gold bracelet given to the ﬁrst and second petitioners. After the engagement held on 19.01.2006 and the marriage on 10.02.2006, the couple were claimed to have shifted to Hyderabad where they lived together for three months till July, 2006. The second respondent alleged her troubles to have started since the incident on 16.01.2006 (?) and she described in detail various incidents that continued to happen involving each of the petitioners herein resulting in constant demands for additional dowry, continuous harassment and cruelty and ultimately the return of the second respondent to her grand parents place. She claimed that the ﬁrst petitioner to get rid of her conduct ﬁled O.P.No.734 of 2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and she alleged even a subsequent panchayat to be in vain. Therefore, she claimed a right to residence in a shared household, protection order, removal of father-in-law from the shared household, return of Stridhana properties, monetary relief of about Rs.1,00,000/-, monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/-, monthly expenses of Rs.10,000/- for her son, custody orders in respect of the children, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and interim orders to the same eﬀect pending determination of the domestic violence case. 3. The Protection Oﬃcer consequently ﬁled a domestic violence report, which was taken cognizance against all the petitioners. 4. The petitioners challenge the tenability of the said proceedings alleging that all the allegations against them are baseless and the couple lived happily from 10.02.2006 till December, 2007. The second respondent herself was alleged to have left the company of the husband on 26.12.2007 and refused to come back or even to show their son to the ﬁrst petitioner. The ﬁrst petitioner was hence, claimed to have been compelled to ﬁle O.P.No.734 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights and the exchange of notices subsequently led the second respondent to come up with a false case herein. The allegations were stated not to constitute any oﬀences under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) and hence, the petitioners desired the further proceedings to be quashed. 5. Smt K.Lalitha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the ﬁrst respondent, are heard. 6. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings in the domestic violence case can be quashed against the petitioners in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. 7. It is true that O.P.No.734 of 2009 was ﬁled before the Family Court by the ﬁrst petitioner herein against the second respondent herein before presentation of the complaint by the second respondent herein to the Protection Oﬃcer and the ﬁrst petitioner alleged therein that it was the second respondent who deserted him, but the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the ﬁrst respondent cannot be the subject of consideration herein with the said petition for restitution of conjugal rights being still pending determination on merits by the Family Court. Notices exchanged between the parties before ﬁling of the domestic violence case respectively tried to throw the blame for the marital discord on the other side and they cannot form the basis for any conclusion. The Protection Oﬃcer, on veriﬁcation of the allegations made in the complaint by the second respondent, appears to have concurred with a prima facie existence of a basis for her claiming the reliefs sought for against the petitioners and the matter has to be left to be enquired into on merits by the Magistrate in the domestic violence case. 8. It is true that petitioners 2 and 3 are permanent residents of Kotapoluru Village, Sullurpet Mandal in Nellore District, while the sisters of the husband, petitioners 4 and 5 are married and are residing with their own families separately at Punjagutta, Hyderabad, and Srikalahasti, respectively and the ﬁrst petitioner is employed on his own and was admittedly residing separately. However, the allegations made in the D.V.C. are elaborate and the allegations against each of the petitioners are practically spread over the entire period between the marriage on 10.02.2006 and the complaint on 09.10.2009. Thus, notwithstanding the separate residence of the petitioners 2 to 5, their involvement in the alleged acts of domestic violence could not have been ruled out without an enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations when the petitioners were claimed to be together in making the demands for dowry in cash, gold and silver articles and in making demands for additional dowry thereafter. The abuses, threats to kill her by pouring Kerosene, the arguments of the sisters of the husband with the second respondent including abuses in vulgar language, the slapping of the second respondent by the sisters both at Hyderabad and the village of the parents, the telephonic instigation by the other members of the family to the ﬁrst petitioner, the speciﬁc incidents on 20.05.2007, 16.10.2007, 15.02.2008, 20.04.2008 and 13.09.2009 etc., were so meticulously described as to be beyond the scope of any summary determination in these proceedings with a restricted scope. Therefore, this Court, which cannot convert itself into a fact-ﬁnding authority, on various allegations has to relegate the enquiry back to the trial Court only. Smt K.Lallitha, learned counsel for the petitioners of course rightly brought to notice that insofar as the right to residence, return of Stridhana properties, monetary reliefs including maintenance of the second respondent and her son and custody orders are concerned, petitioners 2 to 5 may not be susceptible to any reliefs in favour of the second respondent. The argument has suﬃcient force and will necessarily be considered by the trial Court while considering any reliefs to be granted to the second respondent in case of her ultimate success in D.V.C. on merits. However, insofar as the protection order and compensation claimed in D.V.C. are concerned on the wholesale allegations made against all the petitioners, it cannot be concluded herein that petitioners 2 to 5 will ultimately be absolved of any liability for such reliefs. Therefore, none of the petitioners can be exonerated from the further proceedings in the D.V.C. 9. However, Smt K.Lalitha, learned counsel for the petitioners represented that petitioners 2 and 3 the parents, are advanced in age and are not in good health to enable them to attend the Court at Hyderabad on all dates of hearing and their being subjected to the ordeal of travel to and stay at Hyderabad itself will be imposing a punishment even without a trial. She also submitted that petitioners 4 and 5 leading their marital lives with their respective families as dutiful house wives also need not be compelled to attend the Court on all the dates of hearing in the interests of justice. The request of the learned counsel is but reasonable and can be directed to be positively considered. 10. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, but, if the petitioners 2 to 5 or any of them so desire and are so advised, they can make an appropriate request to the trial Court to dispense with their personal presence on all future dates of hearing except when their presence is absolutely indispensable for further progress of the case and in the event of such a request being made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 30, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9112 OF 2009 Between: P.Sheshikumar Reddy and others. ...PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its P.P. and another. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13012 OF 2010 30.11.2011 YVL