THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11607 of 2010 Order: The Criminal Petition is directed against the continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners in D.V.C. No. 26 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. The second respondent herein filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, parents-in-law and the petitioners, who are the elder brother of the husband and his wife, alleging that she was married to the first respondent in the Domestic Violence Case on 13.5.2005 at her parents’ house as per Hindu rites and customs, at which time, her parents presented cash of Rs.70,000/-; two tolas of gold and household articles. She claimed that she and her husband lived together in the house of the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case at Sultanpur happily for two months, after which, the husband on the instigation of the other respondents to the Domestic Violence Case started torturing her physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. She claimed that she has still continued to live with her husband in the hope of reformation and the husband addicted to heavy drinking was abusing and beating her every day. She also claimed that in 2007, all the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case beat her and drove her out of the house demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. Since then she was residing in her parents’ house and after six or seven months, a panchayat was held before elders, during which, the parents-in-law and the elder brother of the husband agreed not to torture the second respondent herein, to which effect, an agreement was also drafted by S. Jagga Rao, an elder on 18.12.2008. The second respondent herein claimed to have come back to the marital home with the husband, parents- in-law and elder brother of the husband. But, after two days, the husband again started beating her in a drunken state to bring additional dowry. When she expressed that her parents are very poor and cannot pay such money, ultimately, at the instance of other respondents to the Domestic Violence Case, the husband beat her indiscriminately and drove her out of the house. The wife living with her parents since then sought for compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs from her husband; a direction to the respondents in the case to allow her into the house; an order of protection and prohibition against them from committing any act of domestic violence and physically and mentally harassing her and restraining the respondents in the case from dispossessing or disturbing her possession in the joint family house. The petitioners, who are the elder brother of the husband and his wife seek in this Criminal Petition quashing of the further proceedings against them in the Domestic Violence Case claiming that they got separated even prior to the marriage of the second respondent with the first respondent in the Domestic Violence Case and lived independently. They claimed that the complaint against them is false and is also devoid of any specific allegations. They further claimed that they are noway benefited by instigating the husband to demand for additional dowry and they desired the further proceedings against them to be quashed. Sri M. Arvind, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent are heard. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case have to be terminated against the petitioners. Along with the Criminal Petition, the petitioners have filed copies of different documents, first of which is a copy of the sale deed dated 2.9.1997 executed by the first petitioner in favour of third parties and the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely on the said document to indicate that the first petitioner was indulging in transactions of his own unconnected with his parents or other members of the family even by 1997. Whether the sale deed in question is by itself sufficient to assume any such severence of status in living of the petitioners or not, the copy of the passbook issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad on 8.6.2006 describes the first petitioner as a teacher residing in Jyothi Nagar at Karimnagar and the passbook shows various entries of deposit and withdrawal in 2008 and 2009. Copy of the Household Card issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemadevarapally on 21.7.2005 shows that he was described as a Government employee and the first petitioner’s wife and children were also included as family members in the said card with residence being at Jyothi Nagar of Karimnagar Town. The consumer subscription document issued by the relevant gas agency at Karimnagar was also filed to show that the first petitioner was issued the domestic gas connection as a resident of Karimnagar on 31.7.2003. The copy of the record sheet of the first petitioner’s daughter issued by Pragathi Primary School of Jyothi Nagar showed that the girl was admitted into the said school on 13.6.2005, while the record sheet relating to the son of the first petitioner by the same school showed that the boy was admitted into the said school on 12.6.2004. The continuance of their education in the same school upto 2008 has also been probablised by the entries in the said record sheets. As already stated, whether the sale deed dated 2.9.1997 probablises total severance of the first petitioner from the other members of the family or not; the other documents clearly indicate the distinct probability of the first petitioner living with his family, including the second petitioner at Karimnagar while working as a teacher getting his children also educated at Karimnagar only. The marriage between the second respondent and the first respondent to the Domestic Violence Case was stated to have taken place on 13.5.2005. If the first petitioner was issued a domestic gas connection on 31.7.2003 and if his son was admitted into a school at Karimnagar on 12.6.2004 and if his daughter was admitted into a school at Karimnagar on 13.6.2005 and if he was issued household card by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 21.7.2005 and he was having a passbook issued by the State Bank of India since 8.6.2006, the claim of the petitioners that they are living on their own at Karimnagar away from the native place of the family is probablised beyond the possibility of any doubt or suspicion. The allegations of the second respondent were about living at the house of the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case at Sultanpur immediately after the marriage where the living was admittedly happy for a period of two months. The conduct of the husband towards the wife thereafter, torturing and harassing her physically and mentally, either due to the drinking habit or due to the demand for additional dowry, was allegedly at the instigation of respondents 2 and 3 in the Domestic Violence Case and the petitioners herein, who are respondents 4 and 5 in the Domestic Violence Case. What was the specific instigation and how the instigation had taken place and when and at what place were not detailed and assuming that the absence of details would not have much mattered, the probability of the petitioners being part of any such instigation does not in any manner appear to be natural or convincing. Whether the first petitioner is living with the husband of the second respondent or living separately on his own, what reason or motive would have prompted the petitioners to instigate the husband of the second respondent to torture the second respondent for additional dowry is unintelligible and incomprehensible. The subsequent involvement of the first petitioner in the panchayat was stated to have resulted in execution of an agreement by the parents-in-law and the first petitioner herein not to torture the second respondent, as a consequence of which, the second respondent was taken back to the matrimonial home at Sultanpur. Participation of an elder member of the family of the husband in a Panchayat to iron out the marital differences could not be termed as an act of committing Domestic Violence by any means of construction and the first petitioner or even the second petitioner could not in any manner be responsible for the husband’s act of beating the wife in a drunken mood and in continuing the demand for additional dowry even after bringing the second respondent to the marital home after the panchayat. While the participation of the first petitioner in the panchayat is thus no sin, which provides for any cause of action against him, further the allegation about the demand for additional dowry being at the instigation of respondents 2 to 5 to the Domestic Violence Case is a vague and omnibus allegation, which cannot inspire any confidence. Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent emphasized that this Court need not indulge in any fact finding enquiry in a restricted summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with various precedents from this Court and the Apex Court prohibiting any such exercise by this Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is no doubt true that this Court cannot convert itself into a fact finding authority in a limited enquiry under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. But, what is being concluded herein is not an enquiry or the result of an enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the second respondent in the Domestic Violence Case but the factual impossibility of the petitioners 1 and 2 being parties to any instigation to the husband of the second respondent to torture and harass the second respondent for additional dowry in any manner. When the petitioners never lived in a shared household in domestic relationship with the second respondent and her husband, as has been clearly probablised by the documents above referred to, the probability of their being guilty of any acts of domestic violence could not have been arbitrarily presumed on the vague allegations made without any specifics by the second respondent. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation nor they can be subjected to any order of providing accommodation or any protection order or prohibitory order when they are not living together with the other respondents to the Domestic Violence Case at the native village, but are living separately. None of the reliefs claimed in the Domestic Violence Case thus appear to be available against the petitioners, even if some prima facie existence of a cause of action is to be presumed against them from the allegations made against the petitioners by the second respondent and the continuation of the further proceedings against them would be a traversity of justice. In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed and further proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C. No. 26 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla, Karimnagar District are quashed. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD,J Date: 21st December, 2011 pnb