Partly allowed

Palepu Mahalakshmi, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC27 Aug 2014CRLP/9323/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dispensed with the requirement for petitioners to appear in person in Domestic Violence Case No. 340 of 2014. Relying on precedents, it held that proceedings under the DV Act (Sections 18-22) are civil though entertaining criminal courts, lacking penal consequences until order violation occurs. The petition was disposed at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Dispensation of the personal presence of the petitioners on every date of adjournment in the Domestic Violence Case; Criminal Petition disposed at admission stage.

Palepu Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of A.P. — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9323 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of all further proceedings in D.V.C.No.340 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram.

¶5

A report under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) was filed against the petitioners and others claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act.

¶6

Though the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings, but in view of the allegations against the petitioners the learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer seeking dispensation of the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court on every date of adjournment on the ground that they are resident of Visakhapatnam and it would be difficult for them to attend the Court on every date of adjournment.

¶7

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits in the absence of any dispute with regard to identity of the petitioners and as the proceedings initiated under D.V.C. are civil in nature with no penal consequence, the presence of the petitioners can be dispensed with.

¶8

In Valisetti Chandra Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh^[1] , this Court while dealing with a situation where issuance of NBWs while taking DVC case on file held that issuance of summons and non-bailable warrants for their presence is not at all warranted, at the stage of passing of the protection orders or residence orders by the concerned Magistrate. This Court further held that mere impleadment of petitioners in Domestic

¶9

Violence Case does not give rise to a criminal offence so as to quash proceedings at the initial stage.

¶10

In Mohit Yadam v. State of Andhra Pradesh^[2] , this Court after referring to the various judgments of the Apex Court and also to the objects and reasons of the Act, held that none of the provisions of the Act has direct penal consequence. It is only a remedial statute which receive a liberal construction. The breach of protection order, or an interim protection order, by the respondent in DVC shall be an offence under Section 31 of the Act. Since the Act has no penal consequences, except violation of orders passed under Sections 17 to 22 of the Act, the court held that it is a “beneficial legislation to stop the pandemic that violence suffered by women, with an object to prevent the gender based violence.”

¶11

In Mohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana^[3] , a learned single Judge of this Court while considering the issue whether revision lies against an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 29 of the Act, held that there is no element of criminality in cases filed for reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, much less the domestic violence case is a criminal case. Unless the case is filed alleging offences under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act, the entire proceedings in domestic violence case are purely civil in nature, but entertained by criminal Courts applying procedure enunciated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶12

Taking into consideration the judgments referred to above, I am of the view that the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court may not be necessary on every date of adjournment. As there is no criminality involved and since the proceedings initiated for the reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 of the Domestic Violence Act are purely civil in nature, the request of the petitioners can be accepted. Accordingly the presence of the petitioners in D.V.C.No.340 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram, is hereby dispensed with

¶13

except on the dates when their presence is specifically required by the Court.

¶14

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶15

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand dismissed.

¶16

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 27.08.2014 gkv

¶17

[1] [ 1] 2010(2) ALD (Crl.)689 (AP) [2] [ 2] 2010(1) ALD (Crl.)1 [3] [ 3] 2010(2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP)

Palepu Mahalakshmi, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palepu Mahalakshmi, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Degapogu Aruna

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Sandu Bhagya Lakshmi

Smt.Lavanya, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Pundu Balamani Vs B.Gangaram

Syed Intesaar Hussain S/o Syed Asrar Hussain Vs State of Telangana

Nemani Veeraraju , Bujji Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police