IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6499 of 2009 Between: Neeluru Pavan Kumar & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Protection Officer & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6499 of 2009 ORDER: The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.29 of 2009, on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally. 2. The complaint of the second respondent herein to the Protection Officer, dated 06.07.2009, stated about the conduct of the husband since the second respondent went to Bangalore after the marriage to lead the marital life. The second petitioner herein was alleged to be supporting the first petitioner herein and was alleged to have beaten and abused the second respondent. The harassment by the mother and the son was also alleged to have led to an incident in the kitchen on an unspecified day when the third petitioner was merely watching all the harassment and was abusing the second respondent and her parents. Again the mother-in-law was claimed to have supported the son and to have talked indecently about the second respondent on 18.06.2008. Thus, while specific incidents on specified dates were alleged to be involving the husband/the first petitioner herein, insofar as the third petitioner herein is concerned, he was specifically alleged to have been involved only on the date of the incident in the kitchen when he abused the second respondent and his parents. Even the second petitioner was alleged specifically only about her involvement on 18.06.2008, while the other allegations against her were devoid of such specific particulars. 3. The petitioners herein contend in the criminal petition that the second respondent earlier gave a report to the police registered in Crime No.821 of 2009, on the file of Kukatpally Police Station, and the petitioners claimed that the second respondent was never interested in leading a marital life with the first petitioner, compelling the first petitioner to file M.C.No.652 of 2008 for obtaining divorce. The petitioners claimed that the Protection Officer and the Magistrate of Ranga Reddy District have no territorial jurisdiction to try the domestic violence case, as all the events took place at Bangalore and as the second respondent left the matrimonial home in June, 2008, the question of any continuing violence did not arise. 4. In Crl.M.P.No.6441 of 2009, the petitioners filed the Domestic Incident Report filed by the Protection Officer before the Magistrate which was taken cognizance in this case and the contents of Form-I of the report clearly show that all the allegations were made only against the first petitioner. The reliefs sought for in Form-II were protection order under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”), monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act and compensation under Section 22 of the Act. 5. The Domestic Incident Report filed by the Protection Officer which led to the Magistrate taking cognizance of the domestic violence case is an indispensable and relevant material for consideration of the allegations herein and, hence, Crl.M.P.No.6441 of 2009 is allowed and the report is received for consideration in the main criminal petition. 6. The criminal petition was not pressed in respect of the first petitioner when the matter came up for hearing on 26.08.2009 and it was dismissed as not pressed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned and, hence, the consideration herein is confined only to petitioners 2 and 3. 7. Heard Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioners 2 and 3, Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the first respondent and Sri S. Gyaneswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Rambabu Sambangi, learned counsel for the second respondent. 8. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3 in the domestic violence case need to be discontinued in the interests of justice. 9. As already stated, the contents of the complaint by the second respondent to the Protection Officer did not refer to any specific involvement of the third petitioner in any acts of domestic violence except for abusing on one day the second respondent and her parents supporting his wife and son. The date of the said incident is not forthcoming. The allegations were, of course, made against the second petitioner with full details about an incident on 18.06.2008 and about her general conduct supporting her son, abusing the second respondent in foul language and threatening her not to disclose the cruelty and harassment suffered by her to anybody else. 10. However, it is seen from the First Information Report in Crime No.821 of 2009 of Kukatpally Police Station and the consequential prosecution of the first petitioner alone in C.C.No.1625 of 2009, on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally, that identical allegations made by the second respondent against the petitioners 2 and 3 herein were found to be untrue during independent investigation by the statutory Investigating Agency resulting in the police deleting the petitioners 2 and 3 herein from the criminal case. The deletion of the petitioners 2 and 3 herein from the criminal case was admittedly not challenged by the second respondent by way of filing any protest petition against the final report before the Magistrate or by filing any private complaint or by challenging the final report in any other manner before any other judicial forum. The deletion of the petitioners 2 and 3 on the same allegations from the criminal proceedings, thus, having become final, which is the subject of consideration in Crl.P.No.9715 of 2009 being disposed of by a separate order today, the claims of the petitioners 2 and 3 in this criminal petition derive considerable support and strength. 11. Even if those criminal proceedings were to be not considered, the Domestic Incident Report by the Protection Officer in this case itself is a pointer to the non-liability of the petitioners 2 and 3 herein to any reliefs in this case. Though they were impleaded as the respondents in Form-I, the specific allegations in Form-I on verification by the Protection Officer were only against the husband. There was only a solitary reference to the use of vulgar language by the mother-in-law and no reference to the father-in-law at all. Whether any abuse in objectionable language on one occasion would amount to an action of domestic violence is also a moot question. 12. Even otherwise, the second respondent is residing with her parents since 2008 and is not in the shared household nor did she seek any relief for provision of accommodation in the shared household wherein the petitioners 2 and 3 are also residing. A protection order against petitioners 2 and 3 as of now, therefore, does not appear awardable under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and insofar as the monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act or the compensation or payment of damages under Section 22 of the Act claimed by the second respondent are concerned, they are available only against the husband. When no acts of domestic violence were specifically alleged against either parent-in-law, the question of any compensation or payment of damages also does not arise, while the relief under Section 20 of the Act in any view could not have been against the parents-in-law. 13. Under such circumstances, either because of a persuasive effect of the conclusions of the police which have become final in the criminal proceedings or because of the absence of any specific allegations against either of the petitioners 2 and 3 about any acts of domestic violence or because of the reliefs claimed in the domestic violence case being ex facie unavailable against the petitioners 2 and 3, the continuance of the domestic violence proceedings against the parents-in-law will be a travesty of justice. The criminal petition has to, therefore, succeed under the circumstances. 14. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of petitioners 2 and 3 and the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.29 of 2009, on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally, are quashed against petitioners 2 and 3. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22nd December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6499 of 2009 Date: 22nd December, 2011 KL