HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2422 OF 2008 DATED: 16.07.2010 BETWEEN: R.Bade Saheb and others .. Petitioners And The State of A.P. and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2422 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.39 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,Kurnool. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. The second respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Project Director/Protection Officer, District Women and Child Development Agency, Kurnool. The same is referred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool and registered as D.V.C.No.39 of 2007. The brief facts relevant for considering the criminal petition may be stated as follows: The marriage of the second respondent was performed with the first petitioner on 26.10.1999, and her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and 30 tolas of gold and other articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of marriage and subsequently all the petitioners harassed her for additional dowry and tried to kill her. The contention of the petitioners is that prior to the D.V.C case, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At the time of filing charge sheet in C.C.No.690 of 2007, the police deleted the names of the petitioners 3 and 4 (accused 4 and 5) on the ground that they are not concerned with the offence alleged. According to the petitioners, D.V.C.No.39 of 2007 was filed by the second respondent only to further harass them and they are not at all living with them and therefore, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. Upon perusing the entire material on record and on considering the submissions made by both the counsel, I am of the view that even if the petitioners were staying away with the complainant, it cannot be said that they are not in domestic relationship with the complainant. The domestic relationship is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act as follows: “(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;” Therefore, it is not necessary to constitute a domestic relationship that the petitioners must be actually living with the complainant at the time of making the application. Further, Section 36 of the Act lays down that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. Therefore, the pendency of C.C.No.690 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool is not bar to initiate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. This Court while dealing with the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners 3 and 4 on the mere ground that the police omitted them from the charge sheet relating to C.C.No.690 of 2007. For all the reasons, I absolutely see no ground in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners to quash the proceedings and consequently, dismiss the criminal petition. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated:16.07.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO. 2422 OF 2008 DATED: 16.07.2010