IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.9287 of 2009 Between: Peddoju Ramu. … Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad & another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.9287 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- This criminal petition has been ﬁled to quash further proceedings in DVC.No.23 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medak against the petitioner herein, shown as the first respondent therein. The second respondent submitted a complaint to the Protection Oﬃcer alleging that she was married to the petitioner on 09.02.2007 and she led her marital life with the petitioner from 10.03.2007 at Delhi where the petitioner was employed and later at Chandrayanagutta on transfer of the petitioner to Hyderabad. She alleged that the petitioner and her in-laws subjected her to physical and mental harassment without allowing her even to speak to her parents and they also got her aborted without even taking her to a doctor. She further alleged that they made attempts to kill her and her infant son and threatened her either to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs or face murder. The Protection Oﬃcer ﬁled a domestic violence report before the Magistrate, which was taken cognizance, seeking reliefs under Sections 18 to 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband, his parents and sister. Her husband is the petitioner herein claiming innocence and alleging that the second respondent was dominating him since marriage and made his life miserable. Even the parents of the petitioner were claimed to have been beaten by the second respondent and all of them were claimed to have been implicated in a false case under Sections 498-A, 506 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in crime No.30 of 2009 of Women Police Station, Hyderabad. The petitioner claimed to be released on bail and contended the domestic violence case to be an abuse of process of law. Heard Sri Jagadeeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/ﬁrst respondent. The second respondent is represented by the counsel assigned by the Legal Services Authority, Smt. S. Sashikala. The point for consideration is whether the case against the husband under the domestic violence law has to be quashed. Very serious allegations have been made against her husband by the second respondent about physical and mental harassment and cruelty since her marriage, which allegations are denied by the petitioner, who claims to have been subjected to such harassment by the second respondent herself. He claims that even his parents were also subjected to ill-treatment by the second respondent and these conﬂicting allegations of fact need to be enquired into by the trial Court during the process of determination of the domestic violence case on merits in accordance with law on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it by the parties. This Court in considering the invokability of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not convert itself into a fact ﬁnding authority and as the domestic violence case does not appear to be not maintainable in law or tenable in fact on the face of it against the husband and as the questions in issue are pure questions of fact, the criminal petition has to fail and hence the same is dismissed. ________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16.11.2011 ES