HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.No.7000 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3 who are respondents 2, 5 and 7 in D.V.C.No.4 of 2009 of the lower Court are father-in- law, and husbands of sisters-in-law of the 1st respondent herein who is the aggrieved party along with her minor daughter. The case was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the lower Court for various reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that when the 1st respondent instituted two cases previously under Section 498-A IPC against her husband and family members, the police after investigation referred those cases as false; and further stated that the dispute between the parties is only with regard to share in the house property which is standing in the name of the 1st petitioner/father-in-law. It is stated that protest petition filed by the 1st respondent in the second out of those cases and it is pending and that the 1st respondent also filed F.C.O.P.No.78 of 2009 in Family Court, Visakhapatnam for maintenance and other the reliefs and it is pending. It is contention of the 1st petitioner that the house property standing in his name is his self-acquired property purchased with his own earnings. On the other hand, it is contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that it is joint family property in which the 1st respondent’s husband has got right and in which the respondents 1 and 2 have right of residence. The dispute whether the property is self- acquired property of the 1st petitioner or whether it is joint family property, is a question of fact. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot entertain and decide the same. It can only be decided by the Magistrate, after both the parties leading oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners 2 and 3 are residents of different houses in the same place Visakhapatnam and that they were unnecessarily impleaded herein. But, as per cause title in the lower Court and also allegations in the petition filed before the lower Court, it is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that all the petitioners are residing together in the same disputed house. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are not necessary parties to the Domestic Violence Case. In case, the petitioners 2 and 3 have to attend their jobs, their presence in the lower Court can be dispensed with during enquiry of the case in the lower Court. After enquiry, the lower Court will decide the case after noting observations of the Supreme Court in para Nos.29 and 30 in S.R.Batra v Smt.Taruna Batra[1] of the Supreme Court. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower Court. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with presence of the petitioners 2 and 3 herein who are the respondents 5 and 7 in DVC.No.4 of 2009 pending enquiry of the same in the lower Court, except on the date of delivery of order therein. _________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.14th December, 2011 PNV [1] 2007(3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (SC)