HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1684 OF 2008 DATE: 05-08-2011 BETWEEN: T.V. Lakshmi @ Rajeswari. - - - Petitioner/A-6. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, And another. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1684 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/A-6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.3 of 2008, pending on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A-6, the Respondent No. 2 is the De-facto Complainant in the Domestic Violence Case. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Domestic Violence Case. 4. The case was filed under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 (Act 43/2005). The report or complaint also provides that a case under Section 498-A I.P.C. has been pending before the Court. It is a case of harassment of de-facto complainant namely T. Phani Chandrika, wife of A-1, daughter- in-law of A-3 and A-4, brother-in-law of A-2 by them and paternal aunts of A-1 i.e., A-5 and A-6. The main allegation against the Petitioner/A-6 is that on 05-03-2007, she along with A-5 in the case mercilessly applied LPG Gas against the de-facto complainant and thereby she was forced to give her jewellery to them and she also used to participate in harassing her actively along with the other accused in the case. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner/A-6 that she (Petitioner/A-6) is a married woman and she has been living at Adikmet, Hyderabad, whereas A-1 to A-4 are living at Uppal, Ranga Reddy District and as such it is something unbelievable that she along with A-5 went to the house of A-1 to A-4 and involved in the said Act and by virtue of Sections 2 (e) and 2 (f) of the Act, she must be a resident of the matrimonial house which is not the case here and hence the Act is not applicable against her. 6. I have gone through the record. It is clear from the record that except alleging that the Petitioner/A-6 along with A-5 applied LPG Gas against the de-facto complainant, no other specific allegation is made against her for attracting the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2 of the Act reads as follows : 2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires – Section 2 (e) of the Act provides, “Aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent ; Section 2 (f) of the Act provides, “Domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.” 7. So, in order to attract these provisions it must therefore be that the Petitioner/A-6 lived in a shared household subject to the satisfaction of the other formalities, which is not the case here. 8. Further, Section 18 of the Act is with regards to passing protection order with regards to domestic violence. Section 19 of the Act provides for protection of her from being disposed from the place of her shared residence or renouncing her rights therein. Section 20 of the Act provides for extending necessary monetary reliefs. Section 21 of the Act provides for handing over the custody of a child or children to the aggrieved party. Section 22 of the Act provides for paying compensation to the aggrieved party when subjected to mental torture. But these provisions are subject to Sections 2(e) and 2 (f) of the Act. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the representation made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/A-6, it appears that no incriminating material is there against the Petitioner/A-6 to bring her with in the purview of the Act and hence, I am inclined to allow the Petition. 10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings in D.V.C. No.3 of 2008, pending on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, in so far as the Petitioner/A-6 are hereby quashed. The Criminal Petition is allowed. However, the de-facto complainant can work out her remedy against the Petitioner/A-6 in the case registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 05-08-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 205 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1684 OF 2008 August, 05, 2011 DSH