IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.9522 of 2010 Between: Manjunath N. Reddy and 3 others .. Petitioners AND J. Samyuktha Priyadarshini and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri G. Rama Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/2nd respondent. DVC.No.174 of 2010 on the file of the Court of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, led the petitioners impleaded as respondents 1 to 4 therein to approach this Court with a request to quash the further proceedings therein. The report of the 1st respondent herein to the Protection Officer, which led to the institution of the Domestic Violence Case on a Domestic Violence report alleged the marriage between the 1st respondent herein and the 1st petitioner herein on 19-10-2008 at which time demands for payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, 20 Tulas of gold, 1 Kg. silver and also household articles etc., were complied with. The 1st respondent alleged that from the very next day of the marriage, petitioners 1 to 3 were subjecting her to cruelty, harassing physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and 20 Tulas of gold. Her expressions of inability resulted in more cruelty and on the very first night between them, the 1st petitioner was claimed to have expressed his suspicion about the relationship of the 1st respondent herein with her boy friends. The 1st respondent also alleged that her father was insulted when he visited her husband’s house in November, 2008 and she was claimed to have been ultimately necked out of the matrimonial home on 23-11-2008. She claimed to be staying with her parents and alleged further incidents even after her desertion leading to Crime No.5 of 2010 being registered on her report by Bhagepally police on 20-01-2010 and Crime No.169 of 2010 being registered by W.P.S., CCS, Detective Department, Hyderabad on 23-03-2010. She specifically alleged that again on 18-07-2010 an incident involving the petitioners 1 to 3 had taken place in which she was assaulted and therefore, she requested for protection to her life from the petitioners 1 to 3. In the Domestic Violence report following the said complaint, the 4th petitioner herein was also included as the respondent. The petitioners challenged the proceedings under the special statute contending that the 1st respondent hardly stayed for a few days at Bangalore, which could not have constituted a domestic relationship and as there was no domestic incident report by the Protection Officer or the enquiry report by the police officer at Bangalore, the further proceedings could not have been maintained. The petitioners also contended that there was no prima facie material produced by the 1st respondent in respect of her allegations more particularly as to what transpired from 23-11- 2008 up to the Domestic Violence Case. The petitioners also contended that the 1st petitioner only assisted the 3rd petitioner in running schools and he has no properties. The petitioners, therefore, desired that the further proceedings be quashed. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings against the petitioners in the Domestic Violence Case have to end prematurely? The material papers enclosed to the Criminal Petition including the notices exchanged between the parties, the reports given to the police and the ultimate complaint from the 1st respondent to the Protection Officer do not disclose any specific references to any specific acts of commission or omission by the 4th petitioner herein, which can be construed to constitute domestic violence or to provide any cause of action for the 1st respondent to seek any reliefs against the 4th petitioner herein under the said Act. It is not clear from Form-I wherein the 4th petitioner has been included as respondent as to on what basis the involvement of the 4th petitioner in the humiliation and discord has been detected by the Protection Officer and a mere reference in Form-III about the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law threatening to kill the 1st respondent could not have formed a reasonable basis either for the Protection Officer to proceed or the Magistrate to take cognizance of the Domestic Violence Case against the 4th petitioner. Sri G. Rama Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 4th petitioner is only a student who has nothing to do with the disputes in the family between the other family members. The proceedings against him have to, therefore, end, as otherwise, it will be a travesty of justice. Insofar as the petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned, specific allegations are made about the misconduct of the 1st petitioner by the 1st respondent throughout in all her writings either by way of notice or complaints to the police or the ultimate report to the Protection Officer. The truth or otherwise of the allegations is not for this Court to enquire into in this restricted enquiry and demands for additional dowry, cruelty, suspecting the character of the wife and physical violation of the person of the wife were allegations made against the husband, which were claimed to have happened from time to time from the very next day of the marriage up to Domestic Violence Case. The husband, therefore, has to face the enquiry before the trial Court and prove himself to be innocent of such allegations. Even concerning the parents, it was specifically alleged in the complaint to the Protection Officer that dowry was originally paid at the time of marriage on the demand of not only the husband but also the parents. The demand for additional dowry was also specified to be from both the husband and also the parents. The specific instances of physical violence against the 1st respondent were also alleged to be involving the parents-in-law. The truth or otherwise of such allegations also are to be, hence, gone into by the trial Court, more so, when it is further alleged that on 18-07- 2010, the parents-in-law were involved in abetting the husband to beat the wife and threatened to kill her. Of course, the parents are stated to be advanced in age and contended to be facing economic, physical and mental stress due to being forced to attend on all dates of hearing at Hyderabad, while they are residents of Bhagepally in the outskirts of Bangalore. For the matrimonial disputes between their son and daughter-in-law, the parents need not be subjected to such difficulties. If they make an appropriate request for dispensing with their physical presence on all future dates of hearing, the same can be possibly considered by the trial Court. The Criminal Petition, therefore, has to succeed in respect of the 4th petitioner and fail in respect of the petitioners 1 to 3. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of the 4th petitioner and is dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 to 3 and the further proceedings in DVC.No.174 of 2010 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are quashed against the 4th petitioner. If the petitioners 2 and 3 so desire and are so advised, they can make an appropriate request to the trial Court to dispense with their physical presence before the trial Court on all future dates of hearing except when their physical presence is absolutely indispensable and necessary for further progress of the case, which shall be positively considered by the trial Court. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-10-2011 Ksn