IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2804 OF 2009 Between: Dr. Y. Radha Krishna Murthy .....PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2804 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/sole respondent in D.V.C.No.5 of 2008 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed D.V.C.No.5 of 2008 stating that marriage of respondent No.2 was performed with the petitioner on 14.02.1990 at Srinivasa Theatre, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, and that their marriage was a love-cum-arranged marriage. It is further alleged that after her marriage, she came to know that the petitioner herein is a habitual drunkard, womanizer and habituated to other bad habits and that the petitioner used to verbally insult her parents, harass her mentally for one reason or the other and suspect her whenever she talked with any one. Respondent No.2 further alleged that she was blessed with two children, aged about 18 years and 16 years respectively; that the petitioner herein used to wander always and not present at the house even on the festivals. In the beginning, respondent No.2 thought that it was because of his profession, but, later, she came to know that it was due to his bad habits and womanizing habits and that when she counseled the petitioner herein to mend his ways, he beat her black and blue. It is further alleged that because of his irresponsible attitude and negligence towards his family responsibility, left with no other option, she started an yoga institute and taking care of herself and two grown up children; that because of the petitioner’s irresponsibility and harassment, their children were suffering mentally, lagging behind in education and gradually becoming introverts; that because of the attitude of the petitioner herein, her son left the home and taking shelter somewhere; that the petitioner herein is also harassing her to bring money from her parents to meet his bad habits and behaviour; that finally vexed with the petitioner herein, respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint with P.S. Narayanguda on 24.02.2008 and the same was registered as F.I.R.No.93 of 2008. The petitioner herein to cover up his behaviour, by making self-injury, has lodged a false complaint against his son alleging that his son made an attempt to kill him and the said case is pending. That due to the illegal acts of the petitioner herein, she is suffering both mentally as well as physically and as such prayed for reliefs under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short, “the Act”) against the petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 herein was leading extra marital life with one D. Sharath Chandra Rahul; that as a matter of fact both respondent No.2 and D. Sharath Chandra Rahul attempted to kill the petitioner and on that, the petitioner lodged a complaint before P.S. Kachiguda and the same was registered as Crime No.48 of 2008; that after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against respondent No.2 and D. Sharath Chandra Rahul for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 201 and 120B read with 149 I.P.C.; that as a counter blast to the said complaint, the present Domestic Violence Case is filed against the petitioner and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that there are grounds to quash the proceedings. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code. If the allegations in the Domestic Violence Case made out a prima facie case, then the question of quashing the case does not arise. 6. Whether respondent No.2 herein was leading an extra marital relationship with one D. Sharath Chandra Rahul or not, is a question of fact to be decided and determined in the Domestic Violence Case. At this stage, the allegations would go to show that the petitioner was accustomed to bad habits and used to beat respondent No.2, and that the petitioner also harassed respondent No.2 herein to bring money from her parents to meet his vices, and that instead of changing the attitude of the petitioner, to cover up his mistakes, the petitioner used to harass respondent No.2 violently. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint would prima facie attract the provisions of the Act. Hence, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 19, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2804 OF 2009 August 19, 2010