IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.10343 of 2010 Between: Omni Sreekanth and others .. Appellants AND The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others .. Respondents ORDER: The criminal petition is directed against the proceedings in D.V.C. No.31 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam against the petitioners herein. 2. The 3rd respondent herein ﬁled a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam against the petitioners alleging that she was married to the 1st petitioner on 28-05-2004, before which her father paid Rs.5,50,000/- towards ‘pasupu kumkuma’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘aadapaduchu lanchanalu’. He was also claimed to have given Rs.1,31,000/- for ‘sari samanulu’, Rs.50,000/- for wrist watch, Rs.5,000/- for clothes to the 1st petitioner, Rs.20,000/- for sarees of the 3rd respondent and another Rs.6,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- for marriage expenses and gold ornaments were also given to the 3rd respondent and the 1st petitioner. After the marriage, the 3rd respondent was claimed to have joined the 1st petitioner at Vijayawada and the conjugal life was stated to be happy for 20 days after shift to Khammam. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner was claimed to have demanded additional dowry from the 3rd respondent’s parents and the petitioners were claimed to have tortured the 3rd respondent in all respects. While the 3rd respondent was appointed as Stenographer in HPCL, Visakhapatnam on 15-09-2004, the 1st petitioner also shifted to Visakhapatnam and stayed in the parents’ house of the 3rd respondent for 45 days and then they shifted to the ﬂat purchased by the 1st petitioner with the amount paid by the parents of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent claimed that the 4th petitioner herein was frequently visiting the 3rd respondent’s house and started harassing and demanding additional amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. On 02-01-2006 the 3rd respondent was blessed with a daughter, the 4th respondent herein, and the petitioners herein were claimed to have again started harassment of the 3rd respondent demanding additional amount after return of the 3rd respondent to the 1st petitioner along with the child. The petitioners were stating that the 1st petitioner will marry another girl, if additional amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was not paid. The 3rd respondent was still bearing everything with the hope of reformation of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners were claimed to have again started harassment by demanding the 3rd respondent to sign on loan papers from the bank and the 1st petitioner even tried to kill her by throwing her from the 5th ﬂoor of the apartment, but for the intervention of the neighbours, when she refused the demand. On the intervention of the elders, the 1st petitioner agreed to look after the 3rd respondent and the child and again all the petitioners started harassing the 3rd respondent. The 5th respondent was stated to have been born out of the wedlock on 18-08-2008 and the 1st petitioner was stated to have not brought her back with the two daughters, demanding additional amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. When the 3rd respondent herself went back to her husband on 10-09-2008, all the petitioners demanded further amount immediately and the 1st petitioner necked out respondents 3 to 5 from the house keeping back the gold ornaments of the 3rd respondent with the petitioners. The 3rd respondent also stated that the 1st petitioner was insulting her before others alleging illicit intimacy with her oﬃce colleagues and all the petitioners were using ﬁlthy language against her whenever she was coming back from the oﬃce. All the petitioners were insulting the 3rd respondent’s parents, sister, uncle and friends over telephone and petitioners 1 to 3 on one occasion forced the 3rd respondent into the bathroom and she sustained a bleeding injury over the forehead when her head was hit to the tap. Petitioners 1 to 3 were also alleged to have attempted to kill her by leaking gas when she was in kitchen room and the petitioners even suspected the talk of the 3rd respondent with her own uncle and with an oﬃce colleague. The 1st petitioner was also claimed to have attempted to kill the 3rd respondent by pressing a pillow on the mouth or by strangulation and many times the 1st petitioner used to go out by locking the house without giving keys to anybody making the 3rd respondent wait till late night for his return from the oﬃce. The 3rd respondent also claimed that she was insulted among relatives and friends and after bearing with all the torture, ultimately the 3rd respondent was forced to give a report to the police on 17-02-2010 resulting in registration of crime No.97 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the III town police station, Visakhapatnam against all the petitioners herein. The 3rd respondent, therefore, was forced to ﬁle even a maintenance case for herself and her daughters and hence, she requested for a protection order, prohibition against the parents-in- law from abetting the 1st petitioner, prohibiting the petitioners from alienating the house, a residence allowance, directing the 1st petitioner to pay monetary relief of Rs.5,00,000/-, return of Rs.5,50,000/- paid towards ‘pasupu kumkuma’, maintenance of Rs.15,000/- each to the two minor daughters and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The petitioners challenged the initiation and continuance of the domestic violence case against them claiming that the allegations in crime No.97 of 2010 and the domestic violence case are not consistent and the domestic violence case was the result of the failure of the 3rd respondent to get the petitioners arrested in the criminal case. The 3rd respondent never adjusted with the petitioners and has a strong desire to live separately without looking after the parents-in-law. The petitioners also claimed that all the allegations of the 3rd respondent about the various incidents are created stories and the 3rd respondent also ﬁled O.P. No.477 of 2010 under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act seeking return of the dowry, etc., and O.P. No.465 of 2010 for maintenance. The domestic violence case is a reiteration of the claim for the same reliefs, which amounts to double jeopardy and therefore, the petitioners desired the further proceedings in domestic violence case to be quashed. 4. Heard Sri M. Roopender, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Satish Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor for the 1st respondent. The protection oﬃcer impleaded as the 2 nd respondent is unrepresented. 5. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings against the petitioners in the domestic violence case need to be terminated ? 6. Point: The copy of O.P. No.477 of 2010 ﬁled by the 3 rd respondent before the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act shows that the said petition was ﬁled only against petitioners 1 to 3 herein and the allegations in the said petition were identical demanding petitioners 1 to 3 to return the dowry amount, marriage expenses, ‘aadapaduchu lanchanalu, value of ‘sari samans’ and refund all the gold articles. The said petition is admittedly still pending. Though allegations were made against the 4th petitioner herein in O.P. No.477 of 2010 also about her visiting the house of the 3rd respondent frequently at Visakhapatnam and harassing and demanding additional dowry, no speciﬁc details as to when and in the presence of whom such incidents happened, were given and the contents of the petition do not show any speciﬁc allegation against petitioners 5 and 6. The copy of O.P. No.465 of 2010 ﬁled before the Family Court by respondents 3 to 5 herein against the 1st petitioner alone is for maintenance for the wife and two minor daughters and in the said petition also, various allegations were made, but the same also do not contain any speciﬁc reference to petitioners 5 and 6. In the complaint from the 3rd respondent leading to registration of crime No.97 of 2010 also, allegations were made only against the 4th petitioner about her visiting the house frequently and dictating terms to the family members in maintaining the house. The complaint did not state about the 4th petitioner harassing the 3rd respondent or demanding any additional dowry from her. The allegations are as though the husband and the family members conspired to make her life miserable by removing the servant maid, etc. The complaint leading to the criminal proceedings, made no other reference to any acts of commission or omission by petitioners 4 to 6. 7. The residence of petitioners 4 and 5 separately at Visakhapatnam and the residence of the 6th petitioner at Vijayawada and not at Visakhapatnam are not in dispute and it is only the husband and parents-in-law who are petitioners 1 to 3 herein that are stated to be residing in the same house where a part of matrimonial life of the 3rd respondent with the 1st petitioner was alleged to have taken place. In so far as the payment of dowry or cash or delivery of other articles at the time of marriage is concerned, there was absolutely no reference to the involvement of petitioners 4 to 6 speciﬁcally, though a general statement was made that they were so paid or delivered as per the demand of all the respondents to the domestic violence case. While admittedly petitioners 1 to 3 alone were residing together before the 3rd respondent and the 1st petitioner shifted to Visakhapatnam, the 4th petitioner had occasions to allegedly visit the matrimonial home of the 3rd respondent only after the shift of the family to Visakhapatnam. An omnibus statement about the harassment by the 4th petitioner during such visits was devoid of any details or particulars and the alleged demand by all the petitioners for additional dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- was equally vague and general. While petitioners 4 to 6 were not alleged to have been involved in the attempts of the 1st petitioner to kill the 3rd respondent or the physical violence meted out to her by petitioners 1 to 3, if petitioners 4 to 6 were married and are living with their own families and if the 5th petitioner is only connected with the family as husband of the 4th petitioner, there was no speciﬁc reason or motive for petitioners 4 to 6 to intervene in the marital life of the 3rd respondent with the 1st petitioner and general allegations about harassment by anybody are easy to make but diﬃcult to disprove. When the 6th petitioner is residing altogether at a diﬀerent place with her own family after marriage working as teacher in the place of her residence and when no speciﬁc allegation was made against her at all in any of the proceedings except the general inclusion of all the petitioners in the alleged acts against the 3rd respondent, the continuance of the proceedings against her will be an obvious travesty of justice. Though some references were made to petitioners 4 and 5 in the allegations made, patently they were not parties to all the day to day happenings in the house of the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent and they were alleged to be involved only during their alleged visits to the house. The allegations are such as would appear quite unnatural and artiﬁcial and do not inspire conﬁdence in a judicial mind. 8. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 referred to a decision in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], wherein a learned Judge of this Court expressed an opinion that the impleadment of any person in domestic violence case does not give rise to criminal oﬀence to quash the proceedings at the initial stage. That was a case where reliefs were sought for under Sections 18 to 20 of the Act and the committal of any oﬀences under Section 31 of the Act was not alleged to have taken place. When the High Court was approached with a misconception of being proceeded against for committal of such oﬀences due to issuance of non- bailable warrants, the learned Judge expressed the view that no criminal oﬀence was involved and therefore, without taking any coercive steps against the petitioner before the High Court, the Magistrate can proceed with the matter. So, it was more a case of the manner in which any oﬀences committed under the special statute have to be dealt with than a matter of considering entitlement of an aggrieved person to approach this Court with a request to quash the proceedings in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case is, thus, distinguishable on the questions under consideration before His Lordship and the proceedings under this Act are governed according to Section 28 by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If all the proceedings under this Act are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there could not have been exclusion of the applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and invocation of inherent powers of the Court in appropriate cases is, therefore, within the scope of the special statute, more particularly Section 28 thereof. 9. It was also contended that the Court cannot go into the truth or otherwise or merits of the allegations made in an enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but what is being attempted herein is not to arrive at a ﬁnding on the acceptability or otherwise of the allegations made by the 3rd respondent in the various proceedings, but the inherent improbability of the involvement of petitioners 4 to 6 in the domestic discord between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent on the very allegations made by the 3rd respondent in various proceedings including in the domestic violence case. The implication of the 6th petitioner, in any view, cannot even be remotely justiﬁed, in view of her employment and residence at a distant place and the absence of any allegation against her about any specific acts of omission or commission concerning the marital life of the 3rd respondent. A stray reference to the 5th petitioner about his being part of the demands made for additional dowry or a solitary reference to the 4th petitioner visiting the residence of the 3rd respondent at Visakhapatnam to harass her without any details or reasons for such harassment, could not have been taken as such allegations as would require referring the parties to a full-ﬂedged enquiry in the domestic violence case. The conclusions of this Court about the untenability of the proceedings against petitioners 4 to 6 are, thus, based on the ex facie unacceptability of the implication of petitioners 4 to 6 in the case without any prima facie dependable basis for the allegations made and the alleged involvement of petitioners 4 to 6 being plainly against the ordinary and natural course of human events, cannot be acted upon. 10. Therefore, the further proceedings against petitioners 4 to 6 should not be permitted to continue at the cost of principles of fair play and justice. In so far as petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned, in view of the various incidents alleged and speciﬁc allegations made against them and their susceptibility to the reliefs, if the allegations are going to be proved to be true during the enquiry, terminating the proceedings against them in this summary enquiry may not be justified. Therefore, the petition should be ordered accordingly. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the event of the Court not agreeing with the request of petitioners 2 and 3 to be let out of the further proceedings, at least dispensing with their personal presence before the trial Court on future dates of hearing may be considered in view of their advanced age, bad state of health and the 2nd petitioner undergoing a heart surgery in the recent past. If petitioners 2 and 3 so desire and are so advised, they are at liberty to approach the trial Court with a request to dispense with their presence on future dates of hearing except when their physical presence is absolutely necessary for further progress of the case and in the event of such a request is being made, the trial Court shall positively consider the same. 12. Subject to the above direction, the criminal petition is allowed in respect of petitioners 4 to 6 and is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1 to 3 and the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.31 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam are quashed against petitioners 4 to 6. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-11-2011 Svv [1] 2010(2) A.L.D. (Crl.) 689 (AP)