B. Seshagiri Rao, v. B.V. Padma,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.12173 OF 2014 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.31 of 2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first respondent - Party in Person and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3 A perusal of the record reveals that the first respondent filed a petition under section 12 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'DVC Act') on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally against the petitioners and another seeking various reliefs. After satisfying himself with the material placed before him, the learned Magistrate has taken the case on file and numbered it as DVC No.31 of 2013. Petitioners herein are respondent Nos.2 to 5 and the first respondent is the petitioner in DVC No.31 of 2013. 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, Mohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana and Mangesh Sawant V. Minal Vijay Bhosale 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. 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. First petitioner is father-in-law, second petitioner is mother-in-law, third petitioner is sister-in-law of the first respondent and the fourth petitioner is the husband of the third petitioner. 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.31 of 2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally 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.
Kvsn