THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8879 of 2021
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code'') to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.283 of 2021 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the said DVC. The said DVC is filed by respondent No.2 under Section - 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act, 2005') against the petitioners seeking various reliefs.
2. Heard Sri P. Shravan Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State. Perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are no way concerned with the family affairs between the 2nd respondent and her husband/A.1 and they never harassed the 2nd respondent demanding for additional dowry as alleged by her in the complaint. The 2nd respondent falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case. He would further submit that 1st petitioner/A.2 is mother- in-law, 2nd petitioner/A.3 is father-in-law, 3rd petitioner/A.4 is sister-in- law of the 1st respondent. A.1 is husband of the 2nd respondent. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioners. In view of the same, he sought to quash the proceedings in the said DVC by dispensing with their presence before the trial Court. 2
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners by the 2nd respondent in the complaint filed under Section - 12 of the Act, 2005 and that the petitioners shall co-operate in concluding the trial before the Court below. In view of the same, he sought to dismiss the present petition.
5. As per the contents of the petition filed under Section - 12 of the Act, 2005, the marriage of A.1 with the 2nd respondent was performed on 02.05.2014. After marriage, A.1 and the 2nd respondent lived together for few days and thereafter the petitioners herein demanded her to get dowry from her parents.
6. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar v. State of Telangana1, which is as under:
"14) To sum up the findings:
i) Since the remedies under D.V. Act are civil
remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist 1 . 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP) 3 the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.
ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court."
7. In the present case, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are aged about 61 and 56 respectively and residing at Siddipet. Even the petitioner No.3 is residing at Siddipet. It is difficult for the petitioners to attend the Court on each date of hearing. Even the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners herein are general in nature.
8. Considering the said facts and also in view of the principle laid down in the above judgment, this Court is inclined to dispense with the presence of the petitioners in the DVC proceedings.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present Criminal Petition is disposed of, dispensing with personal appearance of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein in D.V.C. No.283 of 2021 on the file of V Metropolitan 4 Magistrate, Hyderabad. However, it is made clear that the proceedings may go on against the respondent No.1 in DVC No.283 of 2021.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 01.12.2021 dv