HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4636 OF 2010 DATE:03.06.2010 Between: Varikuppala Krishnam Raju and 4 others …….Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4636 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5 are the respondents 1 to 5 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nakrekal, Nalgonda District. On the report given by the 2nd respondent, the Protection Officer filed the said case in the lower court. The 1st petitioner is husband of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners 2 and 3 are parents, the 4th petitioner is brother, the 5th petitioner is sister of the 1st petitioner. Undoubtedly, there is domestic relationship between the petitioners 1 to 5 and the 2nd respondent. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent gave report to the police who filed charge sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Nakrekal, Nalgonda District against the petitioners 1 to 3 as A-1 to A-3 for offences under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibitions Act and that in the said dowry harassment case, the 2nd respondent alleged harassment by petitioners 1 to 3 only and that now in the domestic violence case, the 2nd respondent is alleging harassment by the petitioners 1 to 5 and another. Scope of enquiry and liability are totally different in a criminal case and in a domestic violence case. Therefore, at this stage, it is not necessary to compare the allegations between the criminal case and domestic violence case that is no ground for quashing proceedings in domestic violence case. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners 2 to 5 are always residing separately from the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent and that they never harassed the 2nd respondent. It is a matter to be enquired into by the lower court. Since the case is not one which is purely of criminal nature, presence of the petitioners 2 to 5 who are the respondents 2 to 5 in the lower court may not be essential during enquiry of the domestic violence case in the lower court. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Appearance of the petitioners 2 to 5 herein who are the respondents 2 to 5 in the domestic violence case is dispensed with during enquiry in the lower court except on the date of delivery of judgment in case they are represented by an Advocate in the lower court. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:03.06.2010. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4636 OF 2010 Date:03.06.2010 Gk.