THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6076 OF 2007 ORDER: 1 This is a petition to quash the proceedings in DVC No.16 of 2007 on the file of the court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The second respondent herein filed the said DVC No.16 of 2007 stating that her husband and in laws are harassing her and therefore she sought an order of protection in her favour and prohibit the petitioners herein from doing any kinds of violence as mentioned in Clauses a, b, c, d, f and g of Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and to also to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. 2 Brief facts are that the second respondent herein filed the compliant before the Court below stating that she was married to the first petitioner herein on 19.11.2004 and at that time her parents gave Rs.80,000/- and 20 grams of gold towards dowry to the petitioners. After the marriage the petitioners started harassing her for bringing additional dowry. The second respondent informed the same to her parents and her parents tried to convince the petitioners, but in vain. On 07.03.2005 when her father approached the first petitioner herein for finding a solution to the problem, the first petitioner advised her father to send her with property documents and further informed that he is not interested in living with her. Later the respondent moved the matter before a family counselling centre where the petitioners threatened her with dire consequences and ultimately it also went in vain. It is further stated that unable to maintain herself, the second respondent filed M.C.No.32 of 2005 before the court of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. It is further submitted that the second respondent filed a complaint before the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, which was numbered as C.C.No.338 of 2005 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, and in the said case the petitioners were acquitted of the said offence. Subsequent to that the second respondent filed the present case before the court below. As stated supra, this petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said DVC 16 of 2007. 3 Despite the notices are served on the second respondent, she has not chosen to put in her appearance either in person or through an advocate. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him, initially the second respondent filed M.C.32 of 2005 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month and the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali vide her judgment dated 20.09.2006 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. and subsequently the said amount of maintenance was enhanced. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that with the same set of facts against the petitioners herein the second respondent filed the compliant on the basis of which a case in Cr.No.74 of 2005 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tenali II Town P.S. for the offence punishable under section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and after investigation a charge sheet was also filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.338 of 2005. Learned counsel further submitted that after a full fledged trial i.e. examining P.Ws.1 to 3 on behalf of the second respondent herein and marking Exs.P.1 to P3, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence against the petitioners is not proved and thus they were acquitted of the said charge and the said judgment was pronounced on 04.05.2007 and immediately thereafter the present complaint has been filed invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is nothing but an abuse of process of the court. 5 In the light of the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners this court looked into the orders passed in M.C.No.32 of 2005 and also the judgment passed in C.C.No.338 of 2005 and this court came to the conclusion that the said contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are true. The petitioners herein were acquitted of the said offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC in C.C.No.338 of 2005 on 04.05.2007 and the second respondent filed the present complaint before the court below on 07.08.2007. When considering the said facts, the allegations made in the charge sheet in C.C.No.338 of 2005 and the allegations made in the present complaint are one and the same. Further, even as per the prayer in this case, it is only to pass an order of protection in her favour and prohibit the petitioners from doing any kinds of violence as mentioned in Clauses a, b, c, d, f and g of Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for maintenance and also for compensation. As maintenance has already been awarded by the competent criminal court and that the petitioners were also acquitted of the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC by the competent criminal court already, this court is of the view that continuance of the proceedings in this DVC case is nothing but abuse of process of the court. 6 Accordingly, in order to secure the ends of justice, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in DVC No.16 of 2007 on the file of the court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. ---------------- 17.06.2010 Kvsn