IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7279 of 2010 Between: Thatipamula Pitchamamba & another .. Petitioners AND Thatipamula Udayasri & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7279 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Miss. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel representing Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.V. Venu, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Smt. V. Poorna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.11 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, against the petitioners. 3. The complaint by the first respondent to the Protection Officer alleged that on 18.11.2004, she was married to Thatipamula Murali Krishna, son of the first petitioner and brother of the second petitioner at which time, cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, 5 tulas of gold and household articles worth Rs.25,000/- were given as dowry. The husband looked after her well till two years, but thereafter, the husband and the first petitioner herein were demanding the first respondent to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and were physically and mentally harassing her and subjecting her to cruelty. They were avoiding any questioning by the parents of the first respondent whenever they came and ultimately, she was necked out of the house, while keeping the five year old son Vamsi back with the husband and the mother-in-law. Efforts for settlement later through elders were in vain and, therefore, she sought for protection from the husband and mother-in-law, right of residence in a shared household and maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month for herself and her minor son. 4. The Protection Officer filed a Domestic Incident Report before the learned Magistrate, which was taken cognizance and reliefs were claimed for orders under Sections 18 to 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) and also consequential interim orders. 5. The petitioners challenged the said domestic violence case claiming that they were innocent of any offences concerning the marital life of the first respondent and there were absolutely no allegations against the second petitioner. The reliefs sought for could have been granted only against the husband and no relief could have been granted against either petitioner. Therefore, they claimed that continuance of the domestic violence case is an abuse of process of law and, hence, it may be quashed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the domestic violence case need to be discontinued against the petitioners in the interests of justice. 7. The complaint from the first respondent to the Protection Officer made absolutely no reference to the second petitioner. The payment of dowry or the demand for additional dowry or the consequential cruelty and harassment on failure to meet such demand were attributed to the conduct of only the husband and the mother-in-law and the avoidance of efforts for settlement was also alleged to be only by the husband and the mother-in-law. There was not even a remote reference to the second petitioner in the complaint and it is not known as to how in the Domestic Incident Report filed by the Protection Officer, suddenly he found place as a respondent. In fact, the contents of Form-I mentioned only the respondent to be guilty of the culpable conduct and it has not even mentioned plurality of respondents to be involved in the acts of domestic violence. The allegations in Form-III in the affidavit of the first respondent also to the extent they were in writing also only stated about the respondent being guilty of harassment physically, mentally and emotionally and the ill-treatment was attributed to the respondent and his mother i.e., the first petitioner herein. Therefore, in the absence of even an iota of material against the second petitioner in the domestic violence case, his inclusion in the array of respondents is obviously an abuse of process of law and the further proceedings have to be quashed against him. 8. However, insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, notwithstanding her old age, the relationship between the parties is admitted and the fact that the shared household is the residence of the first petitioner also is not denied or disputed. The truth or otherwise of the alleged conduct of the first petitioner towards the first respondent has to be enquired into and determined on merits in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate on the evidence to be placed before him by the parties and such a fact finding enquiry is not within the scope of this summary proceeding to consider the invokability of the inherent powers of this Court. The allegations against the first petitioner have to be, therefore, left to be decided in the domestic violence case itself. 9. However, the first petitioner, being aged about 70 years is not seriously in dispute and Miss. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the advanced age and bad state of health, exempting the first petitioner from her personal appearance may be considered, if her submission for quashing the proceedings is not conceded. It is open to the first petitioner to make an appropriate request to the learned Magistrate, if she so desires and is so advised, to dispense with her physical presence before the Court on all future dates of hearing except when her physical presence is absolutely indispensable and necessary for the further progress of the case and in the event of such a request being made, the learned Magistrate shall positively consider the same. 10. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned and is allowed in respect of the second petitioner and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.11 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, are quashed in respect of the second petitioner. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7279 of 2010 Date: 28th December, 2011 KL