This criminal petition seeking quashment of Domestic Violence Act proceedings was dismissed as not a fit case. The court dispensed with the presence of two petitioners (parents/guardians) in trial court but upheld the trial proceedings.
Presence of petitioners 2 and 3 in trial court dispensed with; criminal petition dismissed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.13204 of 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners 1 to 3, who are respondents 1 to 3 in D.V.C.No.171 of 2015 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Erramanzil, Hyderabad.
2. A perusal of the record reveals that the second respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioners and another claiming various reliefs under the Act. The learned Magistrate after satisfying himself with the material placed before him has taken the case on file, numbered the same as DVC 171 of 2015 and issued summons to the respondents.
3. As per the principle enunciated in Valisetti Chandra Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] , Mohit Yadam v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2] and Mohd. Akber Yaseen v. Rizwana Sultana[3] , the reliefs sought under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are purely civil in nature and there is no element of criminality.
4. In the instant case also the reliefs sought by the
second respondent are purely civil in nature without any element of criminality. Whether the second respondent is entitled to claim reliefs against the petitioners or not has to be decided during the course of trial only. A perusal of the record reveals the role played by the petitioners. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the case, the same will cause prejudice to either of the parties. In such circumstances, the maintainability of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very much doubtful.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 3 in DVC No.171 of 2015.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are facing much difficulty to attend the trial Court on each and every date of adjournment. Hence, their presence may be dispensed with.
7. Petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No.1 and in-laws of second respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of petitioners 2 and 3/respondents No.2 and 3. Even if the presence of the petitioners 2 and 3 is dispensed with, no prejudice would be caused to the second respondent.
8. Hence, the presence of petitioners 2 and 3/respondents 2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.171 of 2015 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, at Erramanzil, Hyderabad, is hereby dispensed with on each and every date of adjournment. However, the petitioners shall appear before the trial Court as and when their presence is so required.
9. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
10. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
______________________
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
Date:11.12.2015 Rns
[1] 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP)
[2] 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash DVC proceedings is maintainable.
Whether the presence of Petitioners 2 and 3 can be dispensed with in the trial court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Valisetti Chandra RekhaExplained¶5
2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP)
Mohit YadamExplained¶5
2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP)
Mohd. Akber YaseenExplained¶5
2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (AP)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners 1 to 3
Second Respondent
T. Sunil Chowdary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
