IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6357 of 2010 Between: V. Krishna Rao & another .. Petitioners AND V. Aparna & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6357 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Smt. K. Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. Narasimhulu, learned counsel representing Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri C. Prakash, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent. 2. D.V.C.No.8 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, against the petitioners herein and their son at the instance of the first respondent led the petitioners to approach this Court with a request to quash the proceedings against them. 3. The first respondent herein, in her report to the Protection Officer, dated 06.08.2008, alleged that since her marriage to the son of the petitioners on 19.05.2002, she was treated for some days well and thereafter, her husband, her sister-in-law and her husband and the petitioners herein started harassing her and ill-treating her. While giving graphic details of the ill-treatment and harassment, she specifically stated that her husband, parents-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband demanded her to bring an additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, sell Ac.2.50 cents given to her by her parents and give the money and abused her in filthy language. They have threatened to perform another marriage to her husband and the first respondent claimed to have given a complaint to the police on 12.04.2005 concerning the harassment. She further alleged that on 11.08.2006, her husband beat her and abused her and ultimately, the parents, sister-in-law and her husband also joined in necking her out of the matrimonial home. 4. The complaint of the first respondent led to the filing of the domestic violence report by the Protection Officer before the Court against the husband and his parents only. The sister-in-law and her husband, referred to in the report of the first respondent to the Protection Officer, were not made parties to the domestic violence case, as obviously, the Protection Officer might not have found any substance in the allegations against them or justification to involve them in the domestic violence case. 5. The petitioners herein contend that the first respondent filed O.P.No.553 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights and M.C.No.167 of 2006 for maintenance. They claimed that she also filed Crime No.27 of 2007, on the file of Machavaram Police Station and C.C.No.241 of 2008 before the Criminal Court against them, their son, daughter and son-in- law. The petitioners claimed that their son was also suspended from duty on the complaint of the first respondent herein and thus, the first respondent is indulging in filing one case after the other just to harass them. They claimed that they are residing in Nidadavolu, while their son is residing at New Paloncha, Khammam District and the first respondent is residing at Vijayawada from September, 2006. Even earlier, they claimed that they are living separately. Therefore, they desired the further proceedings in the domestic violence case to be quashed. 6. The question herein is whether the proceedings in the domestic violence case are liable to be terminated against the petitioners herein. 7. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute and the petition itself alleges the separate living of the first respondent to be from September, 2006. The allegations of the first respondent in the domestic violence case are also about being necked out of the matrimonial home on 11.08.2006 till which time, she was alleging about her husband and his parents also to be living together with her and her children in the same house contrary to the claims of the petitioners herein about separate living even earlier. The petition, by the first respondent to the Protection Officer, and other material papers filed along with the criminal petition show that the first respondent was making specific allegations about the involvement of the parents-in-law also in the demands for additional dowry and the threats to have a second marriage performed for the husband and physical violence by the husband against her at the instigation of the parents-in-law. The truth or otherwise of these allegations which were the subject of the domestic violence report by the Protection Officer also cannot be enquired into in this summary proceeding calling for exercise of inherent powers of this Court and it should be noted that the reliefs sought for in the domestic violence case seeking a protection order, etc., cannot be considered to be irrelevant to the parents of the husband also. While it is true that the first respondent might have had instituted a number of proceedings against the husband and her parents in respect of the matrimonial disputes, so long as the law permits institution of such proceedings, the same cannot be made a ground to quash any remedy to which the first respondent has taken recourse to in accordance with law and as this Court is not a fact finding Court in this regard, further proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed without allowing the trial Court to enquire into the truth or otherwise of the allegations. 8. However, the petitioners are claimed to be aged 70 years and 60 years respectively and given their age, their request for dispensing with their personal presence on all future dates of hearing can be favourably considered. 9. Therefore, the petitioners, if they so desire and are so advised, can request appropriately the trial Court to dispense with their physical presence on the future dates of hearing except when their physical presence is absolutely necessary for the further progress of the case and the trial Court shall positively consider such a request. Subject to such direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6357 of 2010 Date: 19th October, 2011 KL