IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.10887 of 2010 Between: Uppalapati Pandurangamma & 2 others .. Petitioners AND U. Swapna Priya & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.10887 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent. 2. An application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, from the first respondent against her husband and the petitioners herein was taken cognizance by the First Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in D.V.C.No.160 of 2010. The first respondent alleged that she was married to the first respondent in the domestic violence case on 23.04.2008 at Rangannagudem at which time, her parents had given 21 tulas of gold, cash of Rs.4,50,000/-, furniture and other household articles, apart from incurring an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- for performing the marriage. The couple lived happily for about three months, but since thereafter, the husband was returning home drunk every night about which the first respondent informed the petitioners 1 and 2, but in vain. When the first respondent asked the father-in-law about the husband not returning home at all on some nights, he did not respond and the villagers informed that the first respondent in the domestic violence case was already married to one Ranga Devi and has a son through her by name Durga Prasad. When questioned, the petitioners were claimed to have been rude to the first respondent and were claimed to have told her to leave the home if she was not interested in staying under such conditions. The first respondent claimed to have returned to her parents’ house after which the respondents to the domestic violence case and some elders in the village were claimed to have approached them after about a week. On their promise that the first respondent to the domestic violence case will not go to Ranga Devi again, the first respondent returned to the marital home. However, the husband repeated his conduct again after two days and he started abusing the first respondent and beating her without any reason. The respodnents to the domestic violence case were claimed to have snatched away the jewellery of the first respondent and the husband was also alleged to have made the first respondent sit out side the house till early hours in the night when he brought his friends to the home. The first respondent further alleged that Ranga Devi also called the first respondent and informed her that she was leading a happy family life with the first respondent before filing the domestic violence case which was known to the petitioners herein. The first respondent also claimed that all the respondents to the domestic violence case one day forced her to bring an additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and also amount for repairs of the tractor. The first respondent alleged that her Mangalasutram was cut and removed by her husband when she told that her parents cannot give any such amounts. The petitioners were alleged to have thrown out the first respondent from her marital home even not allowing her to take her clothes and money and since 27.01.2010, the first respondent was claimed to be with her parents. The first respondent claimed to be studying B.Sc. (Nursing) for which she paid Rs.1,10,000/- as fee which was borne by her parents and, therefore, having suffered mentally, physically and emotionally, the first respondent sought for a protection order against the respondents to the domestic violence case, an order for alternative accommodation against her husband, an order for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month against her husband, apart from a direction to him to pay the tuition fee for her studies and a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- if the husband were not to live peacefully with the first respondent. 3. The petitioners seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against continuance of the proceedings of the domestic violence case against them alleging that the parents-in-law themselves spent about Rs.50,000/- for performing the marriage and presenting the gold ornaments to the daughter-in-law. The father of the first respondent was no more and as her mother had no capacity to bear even the marriage expenses, the parents-in- law themselves got the marriage performed. The elder son of the petitioners 1 and 2 was claimed to have shifted to Manuguru of Khammam District in May, 2009, after the marriage of the first respondent and the petitioners alleged that the first respondent herself deserted her husband and also filed case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) at Hyderabad. The petitioners further claimed that they never lived together in a shared household with the first respondent and her husband and the third petitioner, the younger son of the petitioners 1 and 2, was claimed to be living separately at Hyderabad since 2004 working as a Still Photographer in a Photo Studio at Hyderabad. The third petitioner was married in March, 2009, and is living with his wife at Hyderabad and he has nothing to do with the marital life of the first respondent and her husband. The mother of the first respondent had in fact stated that as the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 is not suitable for the first respondent, they want to perform a second marriage for the first respondent after obtaining divorce from the present husband. They sought for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- which the petitioners were demanded to pay. The petitioners also claimed that both the case under Section 498-A I.P.C. and the proceedings under the domestic violence case were intended to harass them though they did not disclose any cause against them. As the petitioners did not commit any offence under the special statute, they desired that the further proceedings against them should be quashed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings against the petitioners or any of them need to be discontinued. 5. The domestic violence case has described the husband as well as the parents of the husband, who are the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, to be residents of Rangannagudem of Bapulapadu Mandal of Krishna District. The claim that the first respondent to the domestic violence case shifted to Manuguru of Khammam District even in May, 2009, is not in tune with the addresses of the respondents given in the domestic violence case and the marriage of the parties was admittedly performed at Rangannagudem on 23.04.2008. The specific allegations in the domestic violence case were about the conduct of the father-in- law and the mother-in-law vis-à-vis, the sufferings of the first respondent in connection with the continued relationship of her husband with one Ranga Devi through whom he begot a son Durga Prasad. It was specifically alleged that when the husband was returning home drunk every night, the first respondent complained to the parents-in-law, but in vain. When the husband did not return home at all on some occasions also, the first respondent claimed to have complained to the parents-in-law for which they did not respond. In fact, it was alleged that the parents-in-law asked the first respondent either to stay in or leave the marital home if the conditions at the marital home were not acceptable to her. Therefore, there were specific complaints from the first respondent about the conduct of the parents-in-law and more particularly, about their being part of snatching away her jewellery and the mother-in-law telling her that the gold will not be taken out without her permission even by the father-in-law. The ultimate necking out from the house also was claimed by the first respondent to be with the involvement of all the respondents in the domestic violence case. This Court, in a summary enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot convert itself into a fact finding authority and the truth or otherwise of these allegations have to be, therefore, thrashed out during the enquiry into the domestic violence case. Insofar as the parents-in-law are concerned, as they were alleged to be residing with the husband of the first respondent and her husband in the same shared household at Rangannagudem and specific allegations were made against them, this Court cannot go into the acceptability or otherwise of such allegations and the further proceedings have to be continued against the petitioners 1 and 2 before the learned Magistrate. 6. However, insofar as the third petitioner is concerned, it was specifically claimed that he is residing at Hyderabad since 2004 eking his livelihood as a Still Photographer in a Photo Studio at Hyderabad. He claimed that he was married in March, 2009 and he is living with his wife at Hyderabad after the marriage which is but natural and the petitioners have filed a copy of the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India to the third petitioner. The third petitioner was stated in the said Identity Card to be residing at Yousufguda, Hyderabad, by 13.05.2008 and when the marriage of the first respondent was performed on 23.04.2008 and the third petitioner was shown by the Identity Card to be a resident of Hyderabad within less than a month thereafter, the probability of the third petitioner residing together with the first respondent and her husband in the same shared household at Rangannagudem does not appear to be probable. The Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India in performance of its statutory obligations deserves high probative value and in view of the said document and the claims of the petitioners that the third petitioner was always away from the family house at Rangannagudem even since prior to the marriage of the first respondent, the continuance of the domestic violence case against the third petitioner does not appear to be justified. As ex facie, the allegations against the third petitioner appear to have been made to rope him in along with the other members of the family, the inherent powers of this Court should be invoked in that regard. 7. Therefore, the petition is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1 and 2 and is allowed in respect of the third petitioner and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.160 of 2010, on the file of the First Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are quashed against the third petitioner. However, it is needless to observe that any observations made in this order shall not act to the prejudice of the rights and contentions of either party in the domestic violence case. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21st December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.10887 of 2010 Date: 21st December, 2011 KL