T. Sreehari v. T. Padma
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4188 of 2015 ORDER:
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 to 5 in DVC No.3 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District.
2. Heard Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Andhra Pradesh.
3. Petitioners herein are respondent Nos.2 to 5 and the first respondent is the defacto complainant in DVC No.3 of 2015. Petitioners 1 and 3 are brothers-in-law, second petitioner is co-sister and the fourth petitioner is sister-in-law of the first respondent/defacto complainant. A perusal of the record reveals that the first respondent filed DVC No.3 of 2015 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (for short 'DVC Act') on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District against the petitioners and another 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[1], Mohit Yadam v.
State of Andhra Pradesh[2], Mohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana[3] and Mangesh Sawant V. Minal Vijay Bhosale[4] 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 first 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 first respondent herein.
5. Whether the first 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 petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing much difficulty in attending the Court on each and every adjournment. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioners. Even
if the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the first respondent. Therefore, the presence of the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.2 to 5 in DVC No.3 of 2015 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, on each and every adjournment is hereby dispensed with. However, the petitioners/respondents 2 to 5 shall appear before the trial Court as and when their 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: 28th December, 2015 Gsn [1] 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP) [2] 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP) [3] 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP) [4] 2012 Cri.L.J. 1413 (Bombay)