IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.1689 of 2009 Between: Sanapala Tirumala Madhav and another .. Petitioners AND Sanapala (Mojjada) Divya and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the further proceedings in DVC No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The factual background is that the 1st respondent herein filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) alleging that after the marriage between the 1st respondent herein and the 1st petitioner herein on 05-04-2007, the 1st respondent herein was harassed by her husband and in-laws. She claimed that dowry, adapaduchu lanchanam, money for a watch and gold were negotiated prior to marriage and the parents-in-law humiliated the father of the 1st respondent herein for not receiving the bridegroom and not paying the agreed dowry on 01-04-2007. She alleged that the 2nd petitioner herein always used to enquire the 1st respondent herein about the properties of her father and used to demand her to have the properties transferred in his name. She further alleged the ill-treatment and beating by the mother-in-law and ill-treatment by the husband during their stay at Melbourne, Australia. The 1st respondent herein further alleged that on her being sent back on 19-09-2007 she stayed with her parents-in-law where acts of domestic violence had taken place and further allegations were made about the torture and ill-treatment by the husband during the stay of the 1st respondent in the house of the 2nd petitioner herein. The pregnancy of the 1st respondent herein was also claimed to have been terminated and she claimed to have been subjected to untold misery by the husband and mother-in-law. The 1st respondent herein further alleged about the incident on 18-09- 2008 when there was a demand for Rs.15.00 Crores failing payment of which the 1st respondent herein will be divorced. Consequently, the 1st respondent claimed that she was compelled to report to the police registered in Crime No.241 of 2008 of Malkapuram Police Station and she, therefore, requested for directions to the husband to pay maintenance and compensation and to direct the husband and father-in-law to be subjected to a restraint order and to return the amount of dowry, gold ornaments, articles etc. The petitioners herein challenged the proceedings in the domestic violence case not only on the ground of falsity of the allegations but also on the ground of domestic violence application not being in the prescribed proforma as per Section 12 (3) of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Protection Officer’s report not being called for by the Magistrate was also criticised and quashing of further proceedings was sought for. Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Kristopher, learned counsel representing Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel of the 1st respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor-2nd respondent are heard. The points that arise for consideration herein are whether the domestic violence case is ex facie unsustainable on facts against either of the petitioners and whether the case should fail due to any non-compliance with Section 12 (3) of the Act. Insofar as the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein against both the petitioners herein before the learned Magistrate is concerned, specific allegations were made against the conduct of the husband since the marriage up to the filing of the domestic violence case and without replicating all the allegations, it is suffice to state that the truth or otherwise of the allegations should be the subject of the fact finding enquiry by the trial Court and not by this Court within its limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, when it comes to the 2nd respondent, while the relationship of the petitioners as son and father is admitted, the complaint does not appear to contain any specific allegation of acts of omission or commission against the 2nd respondent, which on their face appeared to amount to domestic violence. The negotiations prior to the marriage, the humiliation of the 1st respondent’s father on 01-04-2007, the enquiries by the father with the daughter-in-law about the properties of her father, the alleged phone calls by the father and mother to the 1st petitioner to Australia to demand properties from the 1st respondent herein, the alleged demands for additional dowry by the parents-in-law after 19-09-2007, the meeting on 18-09-2008 etc., contained vague and general references to the 2nd petitioner herein and such allegations are easy to make and difficult to refute. The absence of any specifics in the allegations against the father-in-law is significant and the marital life of the 1st respondent with the 1st petitioner was mostly in Melbourne, Australia and not at the parents-in-laws’ place. On such vague and indefinite allegations, any acts of domestic violence due to which the 2nd petitioner herein can be subjected to any reliefs under the special statute cannot be probably presumed. Even otherwise, the reliefs sought for in the petition are primarily against the husband alone and the 2nd petitioner was not claimed to be communicating in any manner with the 1st respondent herein after the physical separation. The amounts of dowry, gold ornaments, articles etc., were not alleged to be in the custody of the 2nd petitioner herein and primarily, it is the husband that may be liable to be subjected to the reliefs sought for in the event of the ultimate success of the 1st respondent herein in the domestic violence case. For these reasons, any continuance of the proceedings of the domestic violence case against the father may be a travesty of justice and further proceedings may have to be accordingly quashed, while the same may not have any adverse impact on any criminal proceedings pending between the parties before the competent Criminal Court. Coming to the technical violation of Section 12 (3) of the Act and Rule 6 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 forcefully relied on by Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, what sub-section 3 of Section 12 or sub rule-1 of Rule 6 provide for is the making of any application under Section 12 (1) in Form II or as nearly as possible thereto. The use of the words “as nearly as possible thereto” in the Section and the Rule are indicative of not only the directory nature of the provisions but also the reasonable margin of deviation, which the statute itself permits in favour of an aggrieved person due to the very nature of the proceedings contemplated by the statute. The statute is a beneficial legislation to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind within the family as stated in the preamble of the statute and to effectuate effective protection contemplated by the statute, technicalities probably need not stand in the way. While it should be remembered that the complaint was filed direct before the Court and not through the Protection Officer, it is also to be noted that in the absence of any questions of limitation or estoppel or any other legal issues being involved, in the event of any non-compliance with Section 12 (3) of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules due to the prescribed Form II being kept blank though signed by the 1st respondent herein, the 1st respondent herein can be permitted to cure the defect by filing an appropriate Form II duly filled in and duly subscribed to by her within the time to be permitted for the same by the trial Court. No adverse orders against the 1st respondent herein need be passed due to the default in submitting the prescribed form-II duly filled in. Subject to the 1st respondent taking the required steps within a reasonable time to comply with Section 12 (3) of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules concerning submission of Form II, the Criminal Petition should fail in respect of the 1st petitioner and should succeed in respect of the 2nd petitioner. Accordingly, the further proceedings in DVC.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, against the 2nd petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly in respect of the 2nd petitioner and is dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-10-2011 Ksn