Dismissed

M.v.Narasimha Raju and Another v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Telangana HC29 Aug 2018CRLP/10726/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Divisional Criminal Court directed trial Court to follow specific guidelines from Giduthuri Kesari Kumar regarding procedure and quashability of Domestic Violence proceedings without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to follow Giduthuri Kesari Kumar guidelines; Criminal Petition disposed of; Miscellaneous petitions closed.

M.v.Narasimha Raju and Another Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10726 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), is filed by the Petitioners/Respondents 2 and 3 to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.63 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Erramanzil, Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court’).

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for sometime, requested this Court to direct the trial Court to follow the guidelines formulated by this Court in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others Vs. State of Telangana and others¹ .

¶5

In Giduthuri Kesari Kumar ( supra ), this Court laid down certain guidelines to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. in Paragraph 14, which are as follows:

¶6

“14) To sum up the findings:

¶7

i) Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass ex parte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance requires that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.

¶8

ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is

¶9

1 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP)

MSM,J

Crl.P. No.10726/2016

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 levelled 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.”

¶14

Acceding to the request of learned counsel for the petitioners and without touching the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to follow the guidelines prescribed in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar ( supra ). Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to adhere to the guidelines formulated by this Court in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar ( supra ).

¶15