Telangana High Court
Vengala Komuraiah And 4 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 27 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
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
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
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
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.
2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP)
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.
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
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.9905 OF 2022
Date: 27.12.2022.
kvs
