Telangana High Court
Mohd. Abdul Razzak Pasha vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 1 December, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
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.
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
. 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP)
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
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
