IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7198 of 2008 Between: Nazimunnisa and 2 others .. Petitioners AND M. Shabana and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. V. Sesha Kumari, learned counsel, representing Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/2nd respondent. The petitioners seek quashing of further proceedings in DVC No.114 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa, on the ground that they being the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the 1st respondent, are no way liable for any of the reliefs claimed in the DVC and at any rate, no allegations were made against them sufficient to involve them in the case. The petitioners 1 and 3 cannot be subjected to any reliefs under the Act being ladies and there was absolutely no allegation against the 3rd respondent/the 2nd petitioner herein. The background for the petitioners seeking such reliefs had its origin in the report to the Protection Officer by the 1st respondent alleging physical and mental harassment by the husband supported by the petitioners herein, frequent visits by the 3rd petitioner with stay of 10 days each time, the 1st and 3rd petitioners abusing the mother of the 1st respondent on phone in foul language and demanding money and even an attempt to end her life by leaking the cooking gas. The Protection Officer in his report opined that protection orders under Section 18, apart from other reliefs under the statute, will be required and the Protection Officer also observed that the harassment was primarily by the husband, who is also suspecting the 1st respondent and whenever he was absent at home, the 1st and 3rd petitioners were harassing the 1st respondent. A reference to the 2nd petitioner was made only in column-4 of Form-1 along with other respondents to the DVC. Thus, it is true that on the material available on record, the earliest version in the report given by the 1st respondent to the Protection Officer and the contents of the report of the Protection Officer, after due enquiry as per the statute, do not disclose any specific allegation against the 2nd petitioner/father-in-law at any place except his being a party to the support by the petitioners 1 and 3 to the husband of the 1st respondent. The 2nd petitioner could not have been, therefore, considered guilty of any conduct making him liable to an adverse relief against him under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including the Protection Order under Section 18 and on the face of it, his continued involvement in the DVC appears to be not in the interests of justice. However, insofar as the mother-in-law and sister-in-law/ petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned, the grievance of the 1st respondent appears to be primarily directed against them though not with the same intensity as against the husband. Specific instances of abuses by these two persons to the 1st respondent and her mother and other events, which led to the Protection Officer considering the necessity of Protection Order under Section 18 also make it incumbent that these allegations should be enquired into by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law on the evidence placed before it by the parties. A fact finding mission is not within the scope of the restricted enquiry to consider exercise or non-exercise of the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners 1 and 3 may not arise. However, the petitioners 1 and 3 being household ladies and being said to be normally not seen in public by virtue of custom, they can approach the trial Court, if they so desire and if they are so advised, to dispense with their personal presence before the trial Court on the future dates of hearing, except when their physical presence is absolutely indispensable for the further progress of the case. If such a request were to be made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same under the circumstances. Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 and 3 and is allowed in respect of the 2nd petitioner and the further proceedings in DVC Case No.114 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa, are quashed against the 2nd petitioner. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-09-2011 Ksn