Allowed

B.Aswartha Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Aug 2014CRLP/4098/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed Domestic Violence proceedings (DVC No. 4 of 2012) filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held that no valid domestic relationship existed between the petitioner and complainant as the marriage was declared null and void and they were not cohabiting. The continuation of proceedings was held to be an abuse of process of law under Sectio

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in DVC.No. 4 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banganapalle, Kurnool district were quashed.

B.Aswartha Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

TUESDAY THE TWENTYSIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4098 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

B. Aswartha Narayana & Ors. … Petitioners/Respondents

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP. … Respondents/Complainant & Anr.

¶10

Counsel for Petitioners/ : Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy Respondents

¶11

Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri P.Veera Reddy for R-2

¶12

The court made the following: [order follows]

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶14

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4098 OF 2012

¶15

O R D E R :

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in DVC.No. 4 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banganapalle, Kurnool district.

¶17

2. Petitioners 1 to 6 are Respondents 1 to 6 in DVC.No. 4 of 2012.

¶18

3. Second Respondent herein filed above Domestic Violence

¶19

Case alleging that first petitioner is husband and second and third petitioners are parents of first petitioner; Fourth and Fifth Petitioners are sisters of first petitioner and sixth petitioner is husband of fourth petitioner. All of them have committed domestic violence against her and that her marriage with first petitioner was performed on 24/01/2004, which is a second marriage and that first petitioner colluded with her first husband, filed several cases against her and caused harassment to her and that harassment amounts to domestic violence. The complaint was given to Protection Officer and Protection Officer after conducting enquiry filed report before court on 25/02/2012 and the same is registered as DVC.No. 4 of 2012.

¶20

4. Heard both sides.

¶21

5. Advocate for Petitioners submitted that this case is a clear

¶22

abuse of process of court and there is no domestic relationship between the second respondent and petitioners. He submitted that there are earlier cases between the parties and a 498-A IPC case was filed, which was ended in acquittal and a cheating case was filed, which was quashed by this court and first petitioner filed a divorce OP and divorce was granted holding that marriage between first petitioner and second respondent as null and void and an appeal was preferred against the divorce order ,decree and this court confirmed the order of trial court. He further submitted that when section 498-A IPC was pending, second respondent filed maintenance case against her first husband and that was also dismissed in August 2008 and after exhausting all remedies now she invoked the provisions of new Act and in fact by the date new Act came into force. Second respondent and first petitioner were not living together. He submitted even according to her own allegations in the complaint, three months after the marriage on 24/01/2004 i.e., in the month of April 2004 they got separated and living separately and these aspects clearly disclose that it is nothing but abuse of process of law. He submitted that this petition is nothing but to blackmail the petitioners to extract money.

¶23

6. On the other hand, Advocate for second respondent submitted

¶24

that first petitioner married second respondent knowing fully well about her earlier marriage and only at the instance of first petitioner and his family members, the marriage was performed in January 2004 though by that time, divorce petition filed against first husband was pending and the same was referred in the complaint dated 24/10/2011. He submitted that Protection Officer conducted counselling, for which the first petitioner appeared in October 2012 and these aspects disclose that there is domestic relationship between the second respondent and first petitioner and the matter requires enquiry and that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in DVC.No.4 of 2012.

¶25

7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether proceedings in DVC.No. 4 of 2012 are liable to be quashed ?

¶26

8. P O I N T : Admittedly, marriage of first petitioner herein was performed with second respondent on 24/01/2004. It is also not in dispute that one Bhaskara Murthy @ Bhaskara Murthy Sarma, was the first husband of second respondent herein. Second respondent herein filed MC.No. 3 of 2005 against her first husband claiming maintenance and the same is dismissed by an order dated 31/08/2007. Second respondent gave a complaint to police alleging dowry harassment and the same was registered as CC.No. 155 of 2005 and after enquiry the learned Magistrate dismissed the case by judgment dated 26/08/2008 acquitting first petitioner herein, second petitioner and sixth petitioner

¶27

herein of the charge under section 498-A of IPC. First Petitioner herein filed OP.No. 5 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal and the said Court dissolved the marriage by an order dated 09/03/2009 holding that marriage between first petitioner and second respondent herein as null and void. Second respondent herein gave a complaint to Police alleging that petitioners herein have cheated her and the same is registered as Crime No.15 of 2009 on the file of Midthur Police Station, Banganapalle Mandal and the petitioners herein and family members of first husband of second respondent herein who were figured as ‘accused’ in the said crime moved this court to quash the said crime number and this court by an order dated 09/03/2009 considering the contentions and rival contentions of both parties observed that the marriage of second respondent with her first husband took place on 01/05/2002 and the marriage with second respondent with first petitioner herein was on 24/01/2004 and the said complaint is not only vitiated in law but also is abuse of process of law holding so quashed the said crime No. 15 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court while considering the appeal preferred by second respondent herein against the decree of divorce observed that, “from the evidence on record, the marriage between first petitioner and second respondent is “null and void and confirmed the decree of

¶28

divorce granted by the trial court”. These proceedings would clearly show that there is no valid marital relationship between first petitioner and second respondent herein.

¶29

9. As rightly pointed by Advocate for petitioner to attract the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 {for brevity ‘The Act’} there must be domestic relationship between the parties to invoke provisions of the said Act.

¶30

10. From the above proceedings, it is clear that there is no domestic relationship as defined in the said Act between first petitioner and second respondent herein as on the date of complaint i.e., 24/10/2011. Even to attract the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, there must be domestic relationship and in such relationship the parties must reside in a shared house. From the own allegations of the complaint, the second respondent herein is residing separately from April 2004, therefore, the question of living in a shared house or continuing domestic relationship does not arise.

¶31

11. According to Advocate for second respondent, in 2012 October, the first petitioner appeared for counselling conducted by the Protection Officer but the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that when the Protection Officer filed her report into court in February 2012 on the basis of which court registered DVC.No.4 of 2012 the question of conducting any counselling subsequent to filing of the

¶32

report into court without taking prior permission of the court, in my view

¶33

is not permissible.

¶34

12. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court.

¶35

13. For the above reason, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in DVC.No. 4 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate

¶36

of First Class, Banganapalle, Kurnool district are hereby quashed.

¶37

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in these

¶38

criminal petitions shall stand closed.

¶39

___________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .

¶40

26/08/2014 I s L.

¶41

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶42

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4098 OF 2012

¶43

Circulation No.108 Date: 26/08/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43

B.Aswartha Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Aswartha Narayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Bapiraju, Vs K. Dhanalakshmi

Smt.Anjala Sahoo Vs G.Srinivas Reddy

Jampana Venkateswara Rao, Vs Smt Jampana Sailaja

Dandu Sreedevi, Vs Dandu Srinu

V.Rama Chandra Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Kishore Kumar Vs State of a.P., through Inspector of Police