IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5883 of 2010 Between: Guntupalli Nagaraju & another .. Petitioners AND State of A.P. & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5883 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri T. Rajanikanth Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manda Adam, learned counsel for the second respondent and Smt. V. Poorna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the first respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioners. 3. The complaint of the second respondent herein to the Protection Officer resulted in filing of a Domestic Incident Report, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate against the husband, his uncle and aunt and the petitioners herein. The second respondent alleged that she was married to Guntupalli Venkata Nageswara Rao on 20.03.2002 at Akiveedu, West Godavari District, at her parents’ house. Cash of Rs.3,50,000/-, Adapadachu Lanchanam of Rs.30,000/-, 5 sovereigns of gold and a Hero Honda motor cycle were given as dowry. The second respondent alleged that since she went to Kakarlamudi Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District, to her husband’s house to lead marital life, the husband, parents-in-law and the petitioners herein together were harassing her physically and mentally and subjected her to cruelty demanding additional dowry. She claimed to have suffered in silence in spite of the husband abusing her and harassing her. The complaints to the parents-in-law and the petitioners were in vain and they were also alleged to be treating her cruelly. The second respondent further alleged that she was ultimately forced to give a report to the police through her parents and the respondents to the domestic violence case promised to look after her well and took her back. They administered some medicines resulting in abortion and she was necked out of the house on 02.12.2006. In spite of the efforts by her parents, she was not permitted back into the marital home even in spite of intervention by elders and, therefore, the second respondent requested for maintenance, return of the dowry given in cash and kind and compensation for the physical and mental violence inflicted on her. 4. The Protection Officer, who filed the Domestic Incident Report reiterating the same allegations, sought for reliefs under Sections 18 to 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”), from the respondents to the case. 5. The petitioners herein contend that they are innocent of any involvement in the marital life of the second respondent and in Crime No.84 of 2008 registered under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the complaint of the second respondent, there were absolutely no allegations made against them and the police filed a charge sheet only against the husband and parents- in-law. The second respondent was alleged to have not joined the husband in spite of the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, in H.M.O.P.No.104 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights and the petitioners claimed that no relief claimed in the domestic violence case is available against them. Therefore, they desired that the further proceedings against them be quashed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case have to be terminated against the petitioners. 7. The copy of the complaint given by the second respondent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Akiveedu, on 17.07.2008, filed by the petitioners, shows that the second respondent made allegations only against the husband and the parents-in-law about the events relating to the marital disorder and made absolutely no reference to the present petitioners. The First Information Report registered on the same, led to the filing of a charge sheet by the police in C.C.No.562 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, wherein the police, after independent statutory investigation, found even the involvement of the parents-in-law to be not established and deleted them from the criminal proceedings. The prosecution was launched only against the husband who was, of course, noted to have committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While the adjudication of the criminal case against the husband has no relevance so far as the petitioners are concerned, it is also to be noted that in the domestic violence case also, it was clearly shown that the petitioners are residents of Machilipatnam, while the husband and his parents are residents of Kakarlamudi. The complaint by the second respondent to the Protection Officer clearly mentioned the marital life of the second respondent to be at Kakarlamudi at the residence of the husband and though vague, general and omnibus allegations were made against the petitioners also as being involved in the mental and physical harassment of the second respondent with a demand for additional dowry, there were no specific incidents on any specified dates alleged against the petitioners. No complaint against the petitioners was ever stated to have been given referring any culpable conduct prior to the complaint leading to the domestic violence case and if the domestic violence case itself shows the petitioners to be not residents in a shared household in a domestic relationship with the second respondent, their being guilty of any domestic violence appears a remote and unnatural possibility. The prayers sought for in the domestic violence case are a protection order under Section 18 of the Act, a residence order under Section 19 of the Act, a maintenance order under Section 20 of the Act and a compensation order under Section 22 of the Act. If the petitioners never shared the same residence with the second respondent, none of these reliefs can possibly be granted against the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners, therefore, cannot inspire confidence in a judicial mind and more particularly, in the light of the absence of any reference about the petitioners in the criminal case for which no reason was assigned by the second respondent and the continuance of the domestic violence case against the petitioners will be a travesty of justice. The inherent powers of this Court have to be, therefore, invoked in their favour. 8. Therefore, the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioners are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5883 of 2010 Date: 28th December, 2011 KL