Disposed

Shaik Mohammad Rafi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Nov 2023CRLP/9072/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a criminal petition seeking quashment of domestic violence proceedings. Relying on a batch order, the Court held Section 482 CrPC is not the appropriate remedy but granted a specific direction dispensing with the presence of certain petitioners in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Presence of Petitioners 2, 4, and 5 dispensed with in the trial court unless specifically required.

Shaik Mohammad Rafi Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶2

Crl.P.No.9072 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Code”) has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Ongole, for the offence punishable under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶5

Heard Ms.Kopparthi Sumathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent/State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are falsely implicated in the above D.V.C and it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against them.

¶7

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the common order of this Court in Criminal Petition No.599 of 2023 and batch, dated 16.03.2023, wherein, at paragraphs 13 to 15, this Court held as follows:

¶8

“13. In view of the aforesaid reasons stated supra, it can be inferred that since the proceedings under the DVC Act, 2005 are civil in nature, the provisions of CrPC may not apply, is too general and vague. Instances would arise where an aggrieved person also would have to seek the relief in respect of all the petitions filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and the option left to her would only be by way of initiating proceedings under Section 482 CrPC with certain self-imposed restrictions. In view of the principle laid down in Nandkishior Pralhad Vyawahare v. Mangala case, this Court is of the opinion that inherent power of the High Court can be invoked subject to self-imposed restrictions, including availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 29 of the DVC Act, 2005, so as to adhere to redressal of their grievances arising out of the orders passed in a proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 of the DVC Act, 2005.

¶9

14. The present Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005. Though various contentions have been raised in the petitions, the only grievance of the petitioners is that their presence may be dispensed with, in the proceedings before the Court below. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court dispenses with the presence of the petitioners, who are relatives of husband, except husband, before the Court below, except on those occasions when the learned Magistrate feels that their presence is necessary.

¶10

15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petitions, shall stand closed.”

¶11

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶12

submit that atleast the presence of the petitioners 2, 4 and 5

¶13

may be dispensed with, in the Court below. The Petitioner No.2 is the mother, petitioner No.4 is the sister and petitioner No.5 is the nephew of petitioner No.1.

¶14

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 16.03.2023 in Criminal Petition No.599 of 2023. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of the petitioners 2, 4 and 5 before the trial Court is dispensed with, unless there is a specific direction by the trial Court for their presence on any particular dates.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶16

________________________________ VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.

¶17

Date: 23.11.2023. JLV

¶18

¶19

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶20

Crl.P.No.9072 of 2023 Dt.23.11.2023

¶21