IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH (7TH) DAY OF DECEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10237 OF 2010 Between:- P.Pavan and two others …Petitioners A n d Smt. Kondaveeti Sri Chandana and three others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10237 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in D.V.C.No.35 of 2010, on the file of the IV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner/A-1 is the husband of first respondent and father of second respondent. Petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1. The respondents herein filed complaint before the Protection Officer, Woman and Child Welfare Department, Visakhapatnam on 19-08-2010, based on which the Protection Officer referred the matter to the learned Magistrate and the same was taken cognizance in D.V.C.No.35 of 2010. The respondents are seeking various reliefs, including protection against the petitioners from all types of domestic violence and an order of injunction restraining the petitioners from meeting the respondents and an order directing the petitioner/A-1 to pay Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance to the first respondent and Rs.10,000/- per month to the second respondent and Rs.7,500/- per month towards rent and also to refund the dowry amount of Rs.15 lakhs and also the gold, jewellery and silver articles and also claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for the mental torture and emotional distress caused to them. In the lengthy complaint given by the first respondent to the Protection Officer, the various alleged acts of domestic violence and events that have given rise to the cause of action have been graphically described. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be gone into in the present proceedings and they have to be considered only on evidence that may be let in during the course of enquiry in the DVC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent left the company of the petitioners long ago and the first petitioner filed O.P for divorce and thereafter the first respondent gave a complaint, based on which F.I.R.No.374 of 2010 was registered by WPS, CCS, DD, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and so the present DVC.No.35 of 2010, based on the same allegations is an abuse of process of law. It is to be noted that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) are distinct and separate and an aggrieved person is entitled to seek redressal of the grievances by taking resort to the provisions of the special enactment independent of initiation of or pendency of matrimonial, civil or criminal proceedings between the parties in respect of the same subject matter. When the law provides for various types of remedies, the aggrieved person seeking redressal can seek any or all such remedies. The nature of reliefs sought under the provisions of the Act by the first respondent is such that they cannot be granted in the other civil or criminal proceedings. The fact that matrimonial proceedings for divorce filed by the petitioner and the criminal investigation in F.I.R.No.374 of 2010 lodged by the first respondent are pending, is no bar for initiation or continuance of the proceedings under the Act. 5. Having regard to the fact that specific allegations have been made against the first petitioner, who is husband, and petitioners 2 and 3, who are the in-laws, by the first respondent- complainant, it cannot be said that D.V.C.No.35 of 2010, registered on the basis of the complaint given by the first respondent is an abuse of process of law. Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations made in the complaint, they certainly deserve to be enquired into thoroughly so as to ascertain the truth or otherwise thereof. 6. It is well settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the Court have to be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and they cannot be invoked to thwart further proceedings, especially where the complaint discloses specific allegations prima facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. 7. In the present case, in view of the fact that specific allegations have been made against the petitioner, requiring detailed enquiry, it is considered not a fit case to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in D.V.C.No.35 of 2010, on the file of the IV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 7TH December 2010 Lrkm.