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.4361 of 2010 Between: Avula Rajesh & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Avula Chandrakala & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4361 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the first respondent and Smt. V. Poorna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Rayachoty, against the petitioners. 3. The approach by the first respondent to the Protection Officer resulted in a Domestic Incident Report against the petitioners and one Bhuwana, the sister of the first petitioner, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The Domestic Violence Report showed the petitioners to be residing at the same address near R.T.C. Bus Stand at Pakala Town, Chittoor District, while Bhuwana was residing elsewhere. The contents of the prescribed formats in Forms-I to III show that the petitioners were alleged to have mentally and physically harassed the first respondent since one month after the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent. Specific allegations were made in great detail against the first petitioner and it was also specifically alleged that for getting additional dowry, the parents-in-law, husband and sister of the husband joined together in beating, abusing and cruelly treating the first respondent and necking her out of the marital home. 4. The petitioners complained herein that the first respondent already gave a complaint to the police, registered as Crime No.149 of 2009 of Rayachoty Urban Police Station, which is pending investigation and duplication of the same allegations in the present complaint, dated 08.03.2010, is pure harassment of the petitioners, who are innocent of the alleged offences. Contending that continuance of the proceedings is, hence, an abuse of process of law, the petitioners desired the further proceedings against them to be quashed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case have to be quashed against the petitioners on the ground of the pendency of the criminal proceedings on the self-same allegations. 6. With reference to Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”), as well as Section 36 thereof, this Court has already held that the specific and unambiguous language of the provisions of the special statute does not bar simultaneous prosecution of legal proceedings before a Civil Court, Family Court and a Criminal Court, apart from the proceedings before the learned Magistrate under the special statue for the same reliefs and it was also opined that the only legal obligation imposed on the aggrieved person by Sub-Section 3 of Section 26 of the Act is that the learned Magistrate should be informed about the grant of any relief in any proceeding other than a proceeding under the special statute. The reliefs sought for herein can be in addition to and along with any other relief which an aggrieved person may claim in a suit or a legal proceeding before a Civil or Criminal Court by virtue of Sub-Section 2 of Section 26 of the Act as well as the specific enabling language of Section 36 of the Act stating that the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the mere pendency of investigation in Crime No.149 of 2009 of Rayachoty Urban Police Station, at the instance of the first respondent against the petitioners is no ground to treat the domestic violence case as an abuse of process of law. Insofar as the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the first respondent against the petitioners is concerned, it is for the learned Magistrate, on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties, to determine the same on merits in accordance with law and not for this Court in a restricted summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Fact-finding is not the job of this Court in such a proceeding and the criminal petition has to, therefore, fail in the light of the specific allegations made against the petitioners in the domestic violence case, which have to be enquired into on merits by the learned Magistrate himself. 7. However, it is seen that petitioners 2 and 3 are advanced in age and it is requested that their continued presence on all the dates of hearing before the learned Magistrate may be considered to be dispensed with in view of the mental and physical agony that such compulsion to attend may impose on them. The petitioners 2 and 3 can, if they are so advised and so desired, apply appropriately before the learned Magistrate for dispensing with their physical presence on all future dates of hearing except when their presence is indispensable 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. 8. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition fails, and is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4361 of 2010 Date: 28th December, 2011 KL