HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7855 of 2009 Dated : 24.09.2009 Between : Mangali Sadarla Lokesh & others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & others ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7855 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri B.Mohan Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first and third respondents. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioners contend that the second respondent herself withdrew from the marital life with the first petitioner under the circumstances elaborated by them in the criminal petition and the second respondent on the other hand alleged in the report to the Protection Officer leading to Domestic Violence Case that she was subjected to attempts for unnatural sex and that her attempts to lead marital life with her husband were futile. The reliefs sought for in the domestic violence case were in respect of not only the reliefs that can be granted only against the first petitioner, but also for grant of protection orders and residence orders, to which if the second respondent is found justified by the trial Court after enquiry, the parents-in-law also may have to be subjected to. The petitioners themselves stated that after the grant of interim maintenance by the Magistrate, the petitioners desired to have the case transferred to some other Court, which failed before this Court, which ordered expeditious disposal of the domestic violence case. Of course, subsequently, the orders passed by the Magistrate were stated to have been set aside by the Court of Session in an appeal and the averments in the criminal petition show that there were also other proceedings between the parties in crime No.324 of 2008 and O.P.No.2 of 2008. The questions involved are, thus, disputed questions of fact and it can not be said that even ex facie the petitioners may not be liable for the reliefs to be granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if the trial Court were to find after an enquiry on merits that the second respondent will be entitled to one or the other or all the reliefs she claimed under the special Statute. The scope of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited and restricted and any summary conclusions on the issues of fact involved will not secure the ends of justice and the parties have to be hence relegated to the trial Court. The jurisdiction available only in rarest of rare cases cannot be resorted to by the petitioners. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 24th September, 2009 SUR