K.Srihari Gupta, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad v. The State Of Ap., Rep. By Pp., High Court, Hyderabad And ANR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE N. BALAYOGI CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.9 8 3 6 of 2 0 1 1 ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC.No.105 of 2011 on the file of learned I Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2.

It is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the issue involved in the present Criminal Petition has already been adjudicated by the High Court in GI DUTHURI KESARI KUMAR AND ORS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS, reported in { 2015 (2) ALD (Crl) 470 (AP)} wherein this Court held that in view of the remedies D.V.Act are civil in nature, and enquiry therein is not a trail of criminal cases the quash petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not maintainable. It was held therein as under:

"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."

3.

Thus, in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and on verification of the material placed on record, it is clear that the relief

-2sought for in the DV case is purely civil in nature and as held in the aforesaid decision, the quash petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not maintainable. Further, as held in the decision referred to supra, 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 nonappearance 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 4.

In view of the above and following the decision of this Court referred to supra, the present Criminal petition is dismissed in terms thereof.

5.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending consideration, if any, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed in consequence. -------------------------- JUSTI CE N. BALAYOGI DATED: 16-02-2018.

gnr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE N. BALAYOGI CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.9 8 3 6 of 2 0 1 1 Dat ed:1 6 -2 -2 0 1 8 gnr