HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9905 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Respondents 6 to 10 in D.V.C.No.47 of 2022 on the file of Special Mobile-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PCR) at Karimnagar.
2. According to the petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the 1st petitioner is 6th respondent and husband of 2nd petitioner/7th respondent. 2nd petitioner/7th respondent is the sister of husband of complainant. The petitioners 3 and 4 are the daughters of petitioners 1 and 2, 5th petitioner /10th respondent is the mother in law of the 2nd petitioner.
3. According to the DVC petition, 2nd respondent's marriage was performed on 27.05.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and Rs.10.00 lakhs cash, 50 tulas of gold ornaments and Rs.2.00 lakhs worth furniture and household articles were given. Son was born on 06.08.2014. After marriage, her husband and all the family members used to 2 harass her demanding additional dowry. Though, the 2nd respondent tried to convince the husband and family members to look after her, she was not allowed to take food and she was tortured. Her family members and her husband including petitioners 1 and 2 herein forced her to go her parental house for getting additional dowry. The parents of the 2nd respondent gave an amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs and the husband and parents-in-law purchased properties. These petitioners at times used to visit her at Bangalore and whenever they visited 2nd respondent, her husband used to torture her. Several other allegations are also made in the complaint/petition regarding the differences between the husband and wife.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, who are respondents 6 to 10 in the Domestic Violence case submits that these petitioners have nothing to do with the marital life of 2nd respondent herein and her husband and are living separately. A crime was also registered by the Women Police Station, Karimnagar and the names of the petitioners 3 to 5 herein in C.C.No.1965 of 2022 were deleted by the police, which case is 3 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Markapuram Siva Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No.12970 of 2010, dated 30.04.2013 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda v. Parimala in Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2020. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel argued that in the event of the court finding that the names of the respondents are included without any basis, this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can quash the proceedings.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that there are several allegations which are made against these petitioners and they were complicit in harassing the 2nd respondent herein, for which reason, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
7. The remedies under the Act are civil remedies, for which reason, this Court in the judgment of Giduthuri Kesari 4 Kumar v. State of Telangana1 directed the Courts not to insist upon the presence of the parties. Further, it held that quash petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C would not be maintainable on the ground that they are unnecessarily arrayed as parties. Only in exceptional cases where there was no domestic relation as laid down under Section 2(f) of the Act and/or if a competent Court has acquitted the persons/respondents on the very same allegations in such cases, the respondent can seek quashment of the proceedings.
8. To prosecute the relatives of the husband there has to be a domestic relationship, which is defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. Domestic Relationship means, 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.
1 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP) 5
9. In the present complaint, admittedly, the petitioners never lived together as a joint family. The first petitioner/6th respondent in the complaint is the husband of 2nd petitioner/7th respondent, who is the sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, by the time of the marriage of the 2nd respondent herein, petitioners 1 and 2 were married and living separately in Hamliwada, Mancherial Town and District. The 3rd and 4th petitioners are daughters of the 1st petitioner, who are students and living with their parents and the 5th petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. In the entire petition, the names of these petitioners were taken as the persons who instigated A1. Any alleged harassment by the petitioners can be subject matter of criminal case filed under Section 498-A of IPC. Since these petitioners never lived together as family members in a joint family and the basis to make them as Respondents in the DVC petition is a vague allegation of instigating husband, proceedings under DVC Act cannot be continued.
6
10. In the result, the proceedings against these petitioners, who are Respondents 6 to 10 in DVC No.47 of 2022 on the file of the Special Mobile-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PCR), Karimnagar are hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 27.12.2022 kvs 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.9905 OF 2022 Date: 27.12.2022.
kvs 8