IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4499 of 2009 Between: M. Jagadeesh .. Petitioner AND State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed by the sole respondent in DVC.No.23 of 2008 on the file of Court of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor, seeking to quash the further proceedings therein. The said Domestic Violence Case arises out of an application filed by the 2nd respondent herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 wherein she alleged that cash, gold and articles as described in the application were given as dowry for her marriage with the petitioner on 03-06-2001. She alleged physical and mental harassment by the petitioner ultimately leading to driving her out from the matrimonial home on 07-12-2003. She alleged the petitioner to have been detected to be impotent and to be harassing her with that inferiority complex. She stated about HMOP.No.39 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights, M.C.No.1 of 2004 filed by her for maintenance where she was awarded Rs.1,500/- per month, CRP.No.13 of 2006 filed by the petitioner against the said order and Criminal Petition No.216 of 2007 before the High Court, which confirmed the grant of maintenance to her. She claimed that though he had sufficient means, the petitioner was not maintaining her and therefore, she desired all her stridhana properties to be returned to her and monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to her. The petitioner contends herein that the allegations of the 2nd respondent herein are false and a case under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code filed in C.C.No.245 of 2004 ended in acquittal of himself and his parents. After 23-06-2003, they never lived together after the wife left him on her own accord and having failed to get himself and his parents convicted in the case, she abused the process of law alleging domestic violence, which amounts to double jeopardy. The 2nd respondent herein had in fact been not presented with any gold by her parents and all her articles were taken away by her, while leaving the matrimonial home. Hence, he desired the Domestic Violence Case to end prematurely. Heard Sri V.V.S.S. Kameswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. K. Rajkumar, learned counsel, representing Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent. The material papers on record showed that in M.C.No.1 of 2004, the learned Magistrate found on contest that the husband neglected the wife since 2002 and that the claims of the wife about the harassment were not positively discredited during the cross- examination. Though the husband was claimed to have succeeded in a revision before the Sessions Court, ultimately this Court was admitted to have restored the order directing payment of maintenance to the wife. It is true that the petitioner and his parents were acquitted in C.C.No.245 of 2004 of an offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. But, it is seen from the judgment that the acquittal was due to the absence of specific allegations of harassment and contradictions about the demands for dowry in the evidence for the prosecution. The Criminal Court acquitted the accused giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to them due to the material contradictions concerning giving of dowry and any subsequent mediations and not on the ground of any positive finding of the falsity of the criminal case. The standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is different from the balance of probabilities that have to be established in a civil proceeding and therefore, the various allegations made by the 2nd respondent herein in the Domestic Violence Case about payment of dowry, the physical and mental harassment faced by her and her ultimate desertion have to be enquired into and determined by the trial Court on merits on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it by the parties. Any fact finding exercise cannot be subject of a limited enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court and therefore, the Criminal Petition has to fail. However, the petitioner is claimed to be working as a Teacher in an Elementary School with limited means of sustenance and the primary complaint is about harassment due to the various legal proceedings instituted against him at different levels under different provisions. Keeping the same in view, the trial Court can be requested to dispose of the matter on merits at the earliest possible opportunity. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. But, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of DVC.No.23 of 2008 on its file on merits in accordance with law within three (3) months from the date of communication of this order after every reasonable opportunity to both parties. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-10-2011 Ksn