Allowed

Perala Basava Purnamma, v. Smt.Uma Lakshmi and Another

Telangana HC20 Dec 2017CRLP/1694/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, holding there was no domestic relationship between the parties and proceeding further amounted to abuse of process, applying the judgment of Giduthuri Kesari Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in DVC No.17 of 2010 and pending miscellaneous applications were quashed and closed.

Perala Basava Purnamma, Vs Smt.Uma Lakshmi and Another — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.1 6 9 4 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed seeking for quash of the proceedings against the petitioner in DVC No.17 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate‘s Court, Tenali.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioner; the Public prosecutor appearing for the 2^nd respondent; and also the counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶6

This is a complaint filed against the petitioner and others under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioner herein is allegedly the woman with whom the husband of the complainant developed illicit relationship. For a petition to be maintained against the respondent under the Act, there should be a domestic relationship, as laid under Section 2(f) of the Act, between the parties. But the allegations in the complaint do not anywhere spell that there was any shared household between the petitioner herein and the complainant.

¶7

Hence, the complaint cannot be maintained against this petitioner. Any further proceedings would only result in abuse of process of law.

¶8

¶9

This Court also in Gidu t h u r i Kesar i Ku m ar v. St at e of Telan gan a¹ held that since the remedies under the DVC Act are civil remedies and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Relevant paragraph reads as follows:

¶10

“13) The next aspect is having regard to the fact that the reliefs provided under Section 18 to 22 are civil reliefs and enquiry under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act is not a trial of a criminal case, whether the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and thereby continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court etc., pleas. In my considered view, having regard to the facts that the scheme of the Act which provide civil reliefs and the Magistrate can lay his own procedure by not taking coercive steps in general course and the enquiry being not the trial of a criminal offence, the respondents cannot rush with 482 Cr.P.C petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in. They can establish their non-involvement in the matter and non-answerability to the reliefs claimed by participating in the enquiry. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.”

¶11