IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4322 of 2010 Between: Piska Satyanarayana and 4 others .. Petitioners AND The State through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Criminal Petition is directed against the continuance of the further proceedings in DVC.No.39 of 2010 on the ﬁle of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar. The factual background for the dispute is that the 2nd respondent herein submitted a complaint to the protection oﬃcer on 09-02-2010 alleging that she was married to the 1st petitioner on 04-05-2001 and had a son and a daughter, aged 8 years and 7 years respectively through wedlock. She claimed that at the time of marriage, her parents paid a dowry of Rs.2,50,000/-, which was utilized for keeping Rs.50,000/- in ﬁxed deposit, purchase of a two wheeler with Rs.45,000/-, purchase of a plot for Rs.55,000/-, purchase of gold with Rs.50,000/- and purchase of household articles with Rs.25,000/- apart from use of Rs.50,000/- at the time of Varapuja. The 2nd respondent further alleged that she was necked out of matrimonial home by the petitioners compelling her to get the ﬁxed deposit released and sell the house plot and also get a further sum of Rs.50,000/- from her parents. She claimed to be living with her parents since then, while the 1st petitioner married one Nasani Rajitha. She further stated that in spite of demands of her father and herself for release of joint right in the ﬁxed deposit and return of two wheeler and the plot, the petitioners abused them and sent them away and hence, she sought for the said reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”). The Protection Oﬃcer ﬁled a domestic violence report before the Magistrate, which was taken cognizance in DVC.No.39 of 2010. The petitioners herein challenged the maintainability of the said case on the ground that the 2nd respondent already ﬁled a complaint in Crime No.124 of 2003 of Bejjenki Police Station for the oﬀences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which case they were acquitted on merits in C.C.No.14 of 2004 and the same allegations are being repeated herein. The petitioners also claimed that in M.C.No.6 of 2004 on the ﬁle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad, maintenance was granted at Rs.500/- each per month to the 2nd respondent and her two children and she had also applied for enhancement of such maintenance, which is pending. The petitioners further claimed that all these facts were suppressed by the 2nd respondent, who voluntarily left the matrimonial home in 2003 and went to her parents’ house and unnecessarily roped in the family members also. On her allegations about the acts of domestic violence being within the jurisdiction of Husnabad Court, the Domestic Violence Case could not have been maintained in Karimnagar Court. The petitioners, therefore, desired the further proceedings to be quashed. Sri K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent are heard. Sri V. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, also produced copies of documents showing that bonds worth Rs.50,000/- in total and a sale deed in respect of a plot were jointly in the names of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Insofar as the acquittal of the petitioners in C.C.No.14 of 2004 in respect of the alleged oﬀences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the same, even if on merits, may not stand in the way of maintainability of the Domestic Violence Case in view of Section 26 of the Act making it clear that any reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or criminal court, aﬀecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act and it will be in addition to and along with any other relief, which the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court. The further provision in Section 36 of the Act also makes the provisions of the Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. It was decided in more than one precedent that multifarious reliefs permitted by law can be taken recourse to alternatively or successively by the aggrieved person and hence, the maintainability of the domestic violence case cannot be questioned on the ground of acquittal in C.C.14 of 2004. The same logic applies to the grant of maintenance in M.C.No.6 of 2004 against the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd respondent and her two children and the only obligation, which is cast on the 2nd respondent, is that as prescribed by sub-section 3 of section 26 of the Act, where in case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief. Sri V. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel, stated that the relief granted in M.C.No.6 of 2004 has been speciﬁcally brought to notice of the Magistrate as mandatorily laid down in sub-section 3 of Section 26 of the Act. These questions had in fact been dealt with in detail in Kothamasu Nagavenkata Suresh Babu v. Kothamasu Suneetha and others[1] and relying on the principles laid down in the precedent, the objections of the petitioners cannot be sustained. Insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the speciﬁc allegations of the 2 nd respondent are about two wheeler, ﬁxed deposit and the plot being withheld by him, which were acquired with the amount of dowry of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by her parents at the time of their marriage. The speciﬁc allegations in the complaint of the 2nd respondent to the protection oﬃcer and the report of the protection oﬃcer to the Magistrate make it clear that the 1st petitioner is alleged to be refusing to return the said properties to the 2nd respondent and he is bound to return the same to her. Such questions of fact in controversy between the parties cannot be attempted to be decided in this summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they have to be left open to be determined in the main Domestic Violence Case by the learned Magistrate on merits on the evidence to be placed before it by the parties and the Criminal Petition has to, therefore, fail in respect of the 1st petitioner. However, insofar as the other petitioners, who are parents, brother and sister of the husband, are concerned, though it is true that allegations were made in the complaint about their involvement also in the demands for conversion of the ﬁxed deposit and plot into cash and for payment of additional amount of Rs.50,000/-, the reliefs ultimately sought for do not in any way concern the other petitioners. The Column-2 in Form-II of the Domestic Violence Case refers to only the reliefs of residence, maintenance, custody and compensation to have been claimed and no protection order appeared to have been sought for. Though some columns in Forms-I and II appeared to have been ticked with reference to the protection order also, as seen from the complaint of the 2nd respondent to the protection oﬃcer, the only relief claimed is concerning the two wheeler, ﬁxed deposit and the plot in the custody of the 1st petitioner, in the return of which the other petitioners had obviously no role to play. As the reliefs claimed in the Domestic Violence Case do not appear to concern the other petitioners and the allegations about the acts of domestic violence against them do not appear to be subject of adjudication for grant of such reliefs, continuance of further proceedings against them in the case appeared to be quite unnecessary, unreasonable and unjust. As such, the further proceedings against them have to be quashed, which, of course, is no expression of opinion on the truth or otherwise or the merits of the allegations of the 2nd respondent about the whole sequence of events relating to her matrimonial strife. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner and is allowed in respect of petitioners 2 to 5 and the further proceedings in DVC.No.39 of 2010 on the ﬁle of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar, are quashed against the petitioners 2 to 5. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-11-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 (2) ALD (Crl) 972