THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5008 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Vijaya Bhaskar Moola, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Smt. V. Purna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent. The Criminal Petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No. 17 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anantapur against the petitioners. A complaint by the 2nd respondent herein to the Protection Officer dated 20.06.2009 led to the Protection Officer filing a domestic incident report before the learned Magistrate which was taken cognizance against the petitioners. In the complaint, she alleged that she was married to the 1st petitioner on 28.08.2007 and right from her going to the parents-in-law’s house, she was treated as an untouchable and as a domestic servant. Her husband was alleged to be coming home in a drunken state everyday and he was harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally with the support of petitioners 2 and 3. The 2nd respondent was allegedly harassed to bring additional dowry, failing which, she was threatened that the 1st petitioner would be married again. The 2nd respondent also alleged that there were attempts to kill her about which she complained to Mahila Police Station at Anantapur and also to the Protection Officer of the District. She alleged about the further events after her complaint to the police and therefore, desired that no anticipatory bail may be granted to petitioners 1 and 2 and that justice may be done to her. On such complaint, the domestic incident report sought for a protection order under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), a residence order under Section 19 and a maintenance order under Section 20 of the Act. The petitioners complained against the said proceedings herein contending that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent as well as petitioners 2 and 3 developed friendship during visits to Bambam Baba Sarva Dharma Ashram at Belugole, Mysore, Karnataka and no marriage was performed between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The petitioners claim that cases were foisted in C.C.No. 1053 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anantapur under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, F.C.O.P.No. 74 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court at Anantapur for maintenance and this Domestic Violence Case on the same set of facts without any cause of action at Anantapur and without any territorial jurisdiction for the Courts therein. The petitioners therefore, claim that in the absence of any cause of action, in view of multiplicity of proceedings initiated on the same set of facts, the further proceedings in D.V.C. need to be quashed against them. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case can be discontinued against the petitioners in the interests of justice. The specific allegations in the complaint by the 2nd respondent to the Protection Officer were directed against the husband and the parents-in-law in great detail. The claim of the 2nd respondent that she was married to the 1st petitioner on 28.08.2007 and that since the commitment of the marital life, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the husband with the instigation and involvement of the parents-in-law, needs to be enquired into on merits in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties, but it cannot be the subject matter of a fact finding enquiry in a restricted proceeding like the present one invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the allegations are proved, the relief sought for concerning a protection order, a residence order and a maintenance order may be available against the 1st petitioner, whereas petitioners 2 and 3 also may have to be subjected to such an order in respect of protection and residence, if their living together in a shared house hold in domestic relationship is proved to be true. Though the petitioners claimed that there was no marital relationship between the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner and that the cases were foisted against them, this Court cannot convert itself into a fact finding authority on such aspects. Insofar as duplication of the proceedings on the same set of facts is concerned, Sections 26 and 36 of the Act were already held by this Court to be enabling an aggrieved person to prosecute the remedies under the special statute irrespective of the proceedings initiated by such an aggrieved person before a civil Court or Family Court or a criminal Court in respect of any reliefs to which she is entitled to under law before those Courts. The multiplicity of proceedings, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing the further proceedings, if the aggrieved person is entitled to prosecute such proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the statute and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed against any of the petitioners herein at this stage. The question of absence of territorial jurisdiction does not arise in view of the residence of the 2nd respondent at Anantapur and Section 27 of the Act. However, Sri Vijaya Bhaskar Moola, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are residents of Pavugada, Karnataka State while the various proceedings have been instituted by the 2nd respondent against them at Anantapur, which is a far off place. The learned counsel submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 are aged above 45 years and finding it extremely difficult to attend the Courts on all dates of hearing without their actual involvement in the lives of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Under the circumstances stated by the learned counsel, petitioners 2 and 3 may make an appropriate request to the learned Magistrate, if they so desire and are so advised, to dispense with their physical presence on all future dates of hearing except when such physical presence is absolutely necessary and indispensable for the further progress of the case. In the event of such a request being made, the learned Magistrate shall positively consider the same. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. -------------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 28th December 2011 ksld