A criminal petition to quash Domestic Violence proceedings was dismissed. The court directed the trial court to complete the inquiry expeditiously, dispensing with the presence of remote relatives.
Trial court directed to dispose of DVC within three months; presence of petitioners 2 to 5 dispensed with unless necessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MONDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3321 OF 2012
Between:
Vangapandu Srinivasu & Ors. … Petitioners/Accused V/s. Vangapandu Aruna & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : M/s. T.V. Sridevi Sri C.Upendra Counsel for Respondents : Sri K.Subrahmanyam for R-1 Public Prosecutor for R-2
The court made the following : [order follows]
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3321 OF 2012
O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in D.V.C. No. 4 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, Vizianagaram district.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioners 2 to 5 are relatives of the husband of first respondent herein and there are matters pending between the parties; one is maintenance case and the other is FCOP and they are contesting the same. It is submitted that first relief claimed in DVC is to restrain respondents by way of injunction not to commit the acts of domestic violence under section 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. According to her own complaint, she was necked out in November 2010, therefore, the question of committing this act does not arise. She further submitted that second relief is to restrain the respondents in DVC from dispossessing petitioners therein from shared house and when she left house in the month of November 2010, this relief is
also not available. It is submitted that third relief is against first petitioner only for her maintenance and she already filed maintenance case and the same is pending and therefore this relief is also not available. She further submitted that petitioners 2 to 5 are implicated only to harass them and any continuation of proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, proceedings have to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, Advocate for first respondent submitted that there are serious allegations against all the petitioners and according to first respondent they made an attempt on her life by pouring kerosene and she was necked out from the matrimonial home in November 2010 and according to the complainant, she was mentally harassed for not begetting children and her father took her to many hospital for treatment and ultimately doctors found that there is no fault of her and the fault lies with the husband i.e., first petitioner herein and these aspects have to be enquired and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with quash petition.
6. As seen from the material papers, there are strained relations between the parties. As seen from the material papers, first petitioner i.e., husband suspected character of first respondent
because of obscene messages found in her cell phone and these aspects have to be decided during trial. Since enquiry in DVC has to be completed within sixty days from the date of first hearing and as the DVC is of the year 2012 by directing the court below to dispose of DVC as expeditiously as possible by fixing time and dispensing with the presence of petitioners 2 to 5, who are residing at different villages, petition can be disposed of.
7. Therefore, trial court is directed to take up enquiry in DVC. No. 4 of 2012 and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and both parties shall co-operate with the trial court in completing the enquiry. The presence of petitioners 2 to 5 is dispensed with during trial of DVC proceedings. However, they shall appear if the trial court feels that their physical presence is necessary for any particular adjournment.
8. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
______________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
23/06/2014 I s L.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3321 OF 2012
Circulation No. 150 Date:23/06/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 20th Court Hall
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act should be quashed as they have become infructuous.
Whether repetition of the petitioners is necessary for the trial of the Domestic Violence case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vangapandu Srinivasu & Ors.
Vangapandu Aruna & Anr.
S. RAVI KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
