Vallala Karthik vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1706 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
              CRIMINAL PETITION No.3031 of 2022
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.37 of 2019 on the file of II Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem. The petitioners herein

are respondents in the said DVC. The said DVC is filed by

respondent No.2 herein 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 learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 -

State. Perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners herein never harassed the 2nd respondent 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 is

husband of 2nd respondent herein, 2nd petitioner is father, 3rd petitioner

is mother, 4th and 5th petitioners are married sisters of 1st petitioner

herein. 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 1st petitioner/R.1 with the 2nd

respondent was performed on 30.03.2016. After marriage, the

petitioners herein started harassing the 2nd respondent.

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 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

. 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP)

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 petitioners herein are aged parents

of the 1st petitioner herein, therefore, it is difficult for them to attend

the Court on each date of hearing. Even the allegations made in the

complaint against the other 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

petitioners herein in D.V.C. No.37 of 2019 on the file of II Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 01.04.2022 dv