IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5464 of 2010 Between: Chandragiri Satyanarayana .. Petitioner AND The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: The criminal petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda against the petitioner. 2. The 2nd respondent gave an application to the protection officer dated 04-05-2009 claiming that on 05-06-1998 she was married to the petitioner herein, at which time cash of Rs.1,40,000/- and ten tulas of gold were given by her father to her husband towards ‘pasupu kumkuma’. She claimed to have lived with the petitioner at Motakondur giving birth to a son during the wedlock. She claimed the husband to have been addicted to vices since seven years and to be harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. The husband was alleged to be instigated by his elder brother Prabhakar with his conduct and she was claimed to have been ultimately necked out of the marital home on 24-07-2006. She claimed that she and her son have been maintained since then by her parents and even the intervention of elders did not improve matters for her. Hence, she desired monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- for her and Rs.1,500/- for her son. 3. The protection officer filed the domestic incident report, which was taken cognizance against the petitioner and his brother. 4. The petitioner challenged the continuance of the domestic violence case alleging that the 2nd respondent eloped with one B. Venkatesh resulting in a complaint to the police by him. He also claimed that the allegations levelled against him in crime No.71 of 2006 of Women police station, Nalgonda at the behest of the 2nd respondent are found to be false and the police filed a final report accordingly. In M.C. No.29 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Nalgonda, the claim of the 2nd respondent for maintenance was dismissed on the ground of her having illicit relationship with B. Venkatesh. The 2nd respondent did not participate in the panchayat convened by the community elders and she filed Crl.R.C. No.1270 of 2008 questioning the order in M.C. No.29 of 2008, which is pending in this Court. Criminal Petition No.8652 of 2008 is also pending in this Court against C.C. No.787 of 2007 filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent is stated to be working as sales girl in a cloth emporium at Nalgonda earning Rs.3,000/- per month and the petitioner claimed that she is not entitled to the relief of maintenance or any reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as the 2nd respondent left the marital home on her own and deserted the petitioner. She can have no claim against the petitioner and hence, he desired the further proceedings in the case to be quashed. 5. Heard Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rameswara Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Smt. V. Poorna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor/1st respondent. 6. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case have to be quashed against the petitioner ? 7. Point: The report by the petitioner to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yedagirigutta, dated 25-07-2006 itself mentioned the 2nd respondent to be his wife who eloped along with her minor son Sivacharan on 24-07-2006. The police registered the crime and investigated into the same. The petitioner also filed a copy of the panchayat held by caste elders and caste association, wherein the caste association and the elders found the petitioner to be justified in giving a complaint against the conduct of the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent sought for maintenance for herself and her minor son in M.C. No.29 of 2008 before the Family Court, Nalgonda, the Family Court in its order dated 30-07-2008 found that the 2nd respondent herein was guilty of improper behaviour, which was the subject of caste panchayats and police reports, thereby disentitling the 2nd respondent from claiming any maintenance from the husband. When the 2nd respondent gave a report to the police in crime No.71 of 2006 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the police after independent statutory investigation, found that the 2nd respondent developed illegal intimacy with Bhuvanagiri Venkatesh, which resulted in the subsequent events and they found the allegations of the 2nd respondent to be false and to be intended to avoid complications arising out of her own conduct. After all these events, the 2nd respondent herein again initiated the domestic violence case making allegations against the petitioner and his elder brother claiming physical and mental cruelty and harassment with a demand for additional dowry. 8. It is true that in the background of various facts and circumstances disclosed by the material papers on record, the claims of the 2nd respondent do not appear probable or convincing or to be in tune with ordinary and natural course of human conduct, but in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for invocation of inherent powers of this Court, this Court cannot convert itself into a fact finding authority and undertake a detailed enquiry into the allegations and counter allegations. The truth or otherwise of the claims of the parties have to be determined on merits in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties and notwithstanding the voluminous material placed before this Court by the petitioner to probablise the incredibility of the claims of the 2nd respondent in the domestic violence case instituted by her, in view of the admitted relationship between the parties, the matter is not one for quashing the proceedings without an enquiry. 9. Under the circumstances, the criminal petition should fail and is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-12-2011 Svv