HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4311 OF 2009 DATE.09-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in D.V.C. No.6 of 2009 pending on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, registered under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short, ‘The Act’). 2. Whereas the petitioners herein are the respondents, the respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner in D.V.C. No.6 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Domestic Violence Case. 3. The first respondent filed the domestic violence case against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for granting : 1. Exparte interim order under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. 2. Protection order under section 18 of the Act from the first and second respondents. 3. Return of Rs.6,00,000/- (said to be given by the petitioner’s parents at the time of Marriage) to the petitioner under section 19 of the Act and further for, 4. (i) directing the first respondent to return dowry amount and gold ornaments to the petitioner, (ii) directing the first respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date 21- 07-2006 (date of desertion) till the date of petition and in future to the petitioners. 5. directing the first and second respondents to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards mental torture and harassment under Section 22 of the Act jointly and severally and 6. directing the first respondent to handover the custody of the child to the petitioner. 4. The main allegation against the respondents is that the first respondent is habituated to all vices like womanizing, consumption of alcohol and horse riding and used to move closely with one Lavanya, who was a tenant in the ground floor of their house property and used to listen her words and all the family members of the respondents used to force her to get additional dowry and also took away her gold and other valuable articles and the first respondent also used to beat her with the active support of other petitioners. 5. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that interim stay of all further proceedings was granted on 25-06-2009 in Crl.M.P. No.3887 of 2009, so far as the second respondent is concerned in the matter, whereas no such stay was granted in the matter so far as the first respondent is concerned and as such the case against the second respondent was separated and numbered as D.V.C. No.8 of 2009, which has been pending and on the other hand, enquiry against the first respondent was conducted and ultimately it was dismissed (vide orders dated 15-12-2009 in D.V.C. No.6 of 2009, a copy of which is filed before this Court to the same effect). 6. Various allegations of harassment of the complainant by the first and second respondents are made in the complaint. It is the main contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the second respondent is a resident of Flat No.101, Anand apartments, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and the complainant is a resident of Adarshnagar, 6th lane, Visakhapatnam and even as per the cause title given in the complaint they never lived together in a shared house and hence by virtue of the provisions of Section 2 (q) and (s) of the Domestic Violence Act, the case is not tenable so far as the second respondent is concerned. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecution opposed the petition. 8. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 9. It is necessary to consider the provisions of Section 2 (q) and (s) of the Act in order to examine as to whether the case is tenable so far as the second respondent is concerned. Section 2 (q) of the Act reads : ‘Respondent’ means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner; Section 2 (s) of the Act reads : ‘shared household’ means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;” 10. In order to attract the provisions of the Act, there should be clear evidence to the effect that the second respondent had lived along with the complainant in the said house. 11. Therefore when even according to the complainant, the second respondent has been living separately and there is nothing in the complaint to the effect that they lived in a shared house together subject to the provisions enumerated above, the Domestic Violence case in so far as the second respondent is concerned, is not tenable. 12. On the other hand, it is emphatical that the case so far as the first respondent is concerned, was already dismissed by the enquiry Court, when that being the case, the same cannot survive even so far as the second respondent is concerned in any case. With these observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings in D.V.C.No.6 of 2009 pending on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in so far as the second respondent is concerned. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 09-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 346 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4311 OF 2009 December, 09, 2011 DSH