Smt.Velicheti Manikyam v. The State Of Ap.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11554 OF 2015 ORDER:
1 This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/respondent No.8 in DVC No.21 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tanuku, West Godavari District.
2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
3 Petitioner herein is respondent No.8 and the second respondent is the petitioner in DVC No.21 of 2015. A perusal of the record reveals that the second respondent filed DVC No.21 of 2015 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'DVC Act') on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tanuku, West Godavari District against the petitioner and others seeking various reliefs. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to their inter se relationship. 4 As per the principle enunciated in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Mohit Yadam v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Mohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana, the various reliefs sought under the provisions of D.V.C. Act are civil in nature.
There is no element of criminality in the reliefs sought by the second respondent. The allegations made in the complaint, prima facie, reveal the role played by the petitioners. The maintainability of the petition itself is very much doubtful in view of the nature of the reliefs sought for by the second respondent. 5 Whether the second respondent is entitled to claim the reliefs against the petitioners or not is purely a question of fact, which requires a full fledged trial and the same cannot be gone into while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If this Court expresses any opinion, touching the merits of the case, the same may cause prejudice to either of the parties. 6 Viewed from factual or legal aspects, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.
7 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing much difficulty in attending the Court on each and every adjournment. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner. Even if the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the second respondent. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner who is respondent No.8 in DVC No.21 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tanuku, West Godavari District on each and every date of adjournment is hereby dispensed with. However, the petitioner/respondent No.8 shall appear before the trial Court as and when her presence is required. 8 With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.
Date: November 12, 2015.
Kvsn