IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5554 of 2009 Between: T. Shivanand and 2 others .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Criminal Petition is directed against the further proceedings in DVC.No.5 of 2008 on the ﬁle of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, against the petitioners 2 and 3. Insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the petition was dismissed as not pressed on 06-08-2009. The 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the Protection Oﬃcer on 02-11-2007 alleging that she was married to the 1st petitioner on 27-05-2005 and lived with him only for four months. She claimed to have been treated well only for two months after which she was harassed for additional dowry, scooter and gold and injured all over her body by burning with lighted cigarettes by the 1st petitioner. She was also claimed to have been compelled to have her pregnancy aborted by the parents-in-law, 2nd petitioner and his brothers Rajappa and Suresh. The 2nd respondent was also alleged to have been attempted to be killed by poisoning by the 3rd petitioner. The 2nd respondent further claimed that she had to seek the protection of her parents resulting in physical, mental and ﬁnancial problems for her parents and brother and severe ill- health for her father due to Heart-attack, Diabetes and B.P. etc. The petitioners 1 and 2 were claimed to be doing hotel business and the 2nd respondent’s parents were claimed to have paid Rs.2,05,000/- towards dowry, apart from 20 grams of gold, a gold ring of 12 Gms and furniture worth Rs.2,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent, therefore, desired security to be provided to her and her parents’ family and also to provide maintenance, direct refund of dowry, gold and furniture and order compensation. The Protection Oﬃcer ﬁled a Domestic Violence report against the three petitioners, but not the parents-in-law against whom also allegations were made in the report of the 2nd respondent to the Protection Officer. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the Domestic Violence Case, ﬁrstly on the ground of Crime No.101 of 2005 being already registered under Sections 498-A, 504 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act resulting in C.C.No.192 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Aurad- B, Bidar District, Karnataka State. They claimed that they were acquitted on merits by the judgment dated 14-11-2006 against which there was no appeal. A private complaint was also stated to have been ﬁled by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Basavakalyan, Karnataka State, which was referred to the police in Crime No.131 of 2006. The 2nd respondent was also claimed to have ﬁled O.S.No.56 of 2006 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Basavakalyan, Karnataka State against the 1st petitioner and his parents to claim maintenance at Rs.3,000/- per month, which was later withdrawn by the 2nd respondent on 25-09-2007. It was claimed that subsequently the 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the protection oﬃcer on which the Domestic Violence Case has been instituted. The petitioners contend that C.C.No.192 of 2006 and DVC.No.5 of 2008 are based on identical allegations and as the allegations were found to be false by the Criminal Court, the present Domestic Violence Case is an abuse of process of the Court. Sri K. Harihar Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners 2 and 3 and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent are heard and though the 2nd respondent is represented by a counsel, there was no representation on the last two dates of hearing and today as well. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case against the petitioners 2 and 3 need to be quashed? The copy of the judgment in C.C.No.192 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Aurad- B, dated 14-11-2006 shows that the three petitioners herein were also prosecuted in the said case along with 4 others in respect of the alleged oﬀences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 2nd respondent herein was examined as PW.9 therein and the allegations against the accused were identical as seen from the contents of the judgment. The accused denied the oﬀences and the learned Magistrate in the judgment found that PW.9 was silent in her complaint about being driven out of the house by the accused on 5-11-2005 to bring gold and money and also tortured by beating. The Court also noted that the complaint did not also state about PW.9 allegedly informing her parents and her parents and herself going to the house of the accused with a request to treat them well. The trial Court also found that from the answers given by PW.9 herself, it is clear that none of the accused demanded either gold or money at the time of marriage or thereafter. The trial Court further found that at the time of marriage or thereafter, the husband was not proved to have been given any gold or money by way of dowry and the evidence of the 2nd respondent herein as PW.9 was not convincing, cogent, clear, credible and suﬃcient to prove the alleged oﬀences. The trial Court also analyzed the other evidence placed by the prosecution on record and refused to accept the same. Thus, the accused were found not guilty of the oﬀence, more particularly, the oﬀences said to have been committed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint dated 15-12-2006 by the 2nd respondent resulting in registration of Crime No.131 of 2006 by Basavakalyan police on a reference by the Court also made similar allegations about ill- treatment and harassment and also the other incidents. The case is said to be still pending. In O.S.No.56 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basavakalyan, Karnataka State, the 2nd respondent sought for maintenance against the 1st petitioner and his parents on the same allegations and the same was withdrawn with permission to ﬁle a fresh suit. The judgment in C.C.No.192 of 2006 is claimed to have become ﬁnal and given the standard of proof before a Criminal Court, it is clear that the alleged offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the complaint from the 2nd respondent to the protection oﬃcer leading to this case, the allegation against the 2nd petitioner was only about his being part of planning and aid to the husband of the 2nd respondent to remove her pregnancy. The 2nd petitioner and others were also alleged to have attempted to kill the 2nd respondent by giving her poison. Again it was stated that it was the 3rd petitioner who was used by others to give poison to her. None of the other allegations in the complaint were against the petitioners 2 and 3. Though the petitioners 2 and 3 were residing in the same house, the 3rd petitioner was stated to be a minor by the time of the alleged incident and she was shown to be only 18 years in this petition ﬁled in 2009. The alleged attempt by the 3rd petitioner to give poison to the 2nd respondent was not stated to be on any particular date or at any particular place and similarly either the plan to abort the pregnancy of the 2nd respondent or the execution of the same were not speciﬁed to be on any particular date or at any particular place. No other persons who can independently speak of such incidents were referred to in the complaint or the Domestic Violence report even by the protection oﬃcer and the Domestic Violence report reﬂects the references to the petitioners 2 and 3 in the column meant for specifying the persons who indulge in domestic violence to be in a mechanical fashion without specifying the link between the petitioners 2 and 3 and the allegations made. The Criminal Court in C.C.No.192 of 2006 had speciﬁcally found the allegation about poisoning of the 2nd respondent to be an afterthought and an improvement. The conclusions of the Criminal Court, which have become ﬁnal coupled with the absence of any details concerning the involvement of the petitioners 2 and 3 in the alleged acts of domestic violence make the continuance of the Domestic Violence Case against petitioners 2 and 3 unjust and unreasonable. Such vague, indeﬁnite and omnibus allegations cannot form the basis for continuing the legal proceedings against them and the very complaint by the 2nd respondent to the protection oﬃcer shows that they were not alleged to be involved in the demands for additional dowry or scooter or gold or the physical harassment of the 2nd respondent by her husband with his sadistic acts. Consequently, the further proceedings against the petitioners 2 and 3 have to be terminated. In the result, the further proceedings against the petitioners 2 and 3 in DVC.No.5 of 2008 on the ﬁle of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of the petitioners 2 and 3. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-11-2011 Ksn