THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.260 OF 2008 DATED: 22-07-2010 Between 1.B.Markandeya and another …Petitioners And 1.Smt. S.Rajitha and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.260 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein who are the respondents 2 and 3 in DVA No.8 of 2007 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that marriage of the first respondent herein with the son of the petitioners took place on 23-11- 1996 and at the time of marriage, father of the 1st respondent gave Rs.1 lakh apart from gold and silver ornaments and promised to pay the balance thereafter. Out of the wedlock, she gave birth to respondents 2 and 3 herein. The 1st respondent was harassed by her husband and the petitioners herein and on 30-05-1998, the petitioners and her husband tried to kill her. Even after securing the job, her husband continued to harass her and he was suspecting her chastity. In the last week of September, 2005, she was beaten by her husband and on 14-11-2006 as she was beaten, she lodged a complaint with the police, who registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Later she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in DVA No.8 of 2007 seeking the reliefs of protection and prevention of commission of further offence, restraining her husband from entering into the school of the children, payment of Rs.7,50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.25,00,000/- in lump sum for bringing up the respondents 2 and 3 and performing their marriages and custody of the respondents 2 and 3 and to execute bond for prevention of commission of violence. 3. The case against the 1st petitioner herein is abated as he reported dead. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd petitioner herein contended that no relief can be given in the DVA itself, that the allegations in the complaint are so vague which cannot attract any one of the provisions under the Domestic Violence Act and therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein contended that allegations would go to show that the 2nd petitioner herein abused the complainant in vulgar language, that they went to the extent of directing the complainant to leave the house stating that she was eating the money of her son for the last ten years and therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 6. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to give effect to the order passed under this Code or to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. There cannot be any dispute that if the allegations in the complaint made out prima facie case of the offences alleged, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 7. The relief sought for in the DVA against the present petitioner is, protecting the complainant and her children from any acts of violence and also preventing the present petitioner from abetting the commission of any domestic violence against them. A specific instance has been quoted in the complaint alleging that on 20-07-2004 this petitioner along with her husband came to Secunderabad and abused the 1st respondent herein in filthy language on the ground that she was depending on their son and asked her to leave the house, which caused untold mental agony. Similarly, it is alleged that the 2nd petitioner herein prevailed upon the 1st respondent herein to stop doing the course. It is also alleged that the 2nd petitioner herein abused the 1st respondent herein stating that she was eating the money of her son for the last 10 years and asked her to leave the house. These allegations certainly amount to domestic violence. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. However, the trial Court can as well give protection to the 1st respondent herein from the domestic violence. 8. Learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner herein contended that the 2nd petitioner has no source of income and she is a old woman unable to take journey from Warangal to Hyderabad and hence, her presence may be dispensed with. Considering the same, the 2nd petitioner is permitted to file necessary application before the trial Court and the same shall be considered keeping in view of the fact that she has no source of income, aged woman and unable to take journey from Warangal to Hyderabad. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ----------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:22-07-2010 Hsd