Disposed

S. Srividya, v. Tarakaraju Krishna veni

Telangana HC28 Apr 2021CRLP/1654/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of two criminal petitions seeking quash of proceedings in a Domestic Violence case. The Court held quash petitions not maintainable as petitions were unnecessary array of parties, as DV Act remedies are civil and no specific allegations were made against them.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of dispensing with personal appearance of petitioners in DV proceedings.

S. Srividya, Vs Tarakaraju Krishna veni — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 3386 OF 2021}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sajja Usha Rani, W/o.^{Sajja ThirupathiRao, Aged about} .4.1^{y9a1q' p9c'} Housewife, nlli,.' ii.r.i".5-s-27ii,^{n"r,"inut'Nag6r,Sadasivpet'Medak District -} 502251^.

¶8

...Petitioner/ResPondent^No'5

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Tarakaraju Krishna^{Veni, W/o. Late Sri' Venkatarathnakara Raju' aged about 55} r;;;;, o;;r;"iion.^{Housewi6.R/o Plot No' 163' Tvpe A Ramnagar colonv .,} ki,iii"p*, Hva"iroro^{t'to*i-"mporarirvResiding ai Plot No 106' Jayabharathi} ijXijlifiJigtii..i<"ro^{r'r"-e, itt il".t, krn coloiv'Nizampet' Hvderabad 500} utz.

¶11

2.StateofTelangana,representedbyitsPublicProsecutorHon'bleHighCourtof Telangana High^{Court,HYderabad'}

¶12

...ResPondents

¶13

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr,P.Cpraying thatin the circumstancesStated} inthelvlemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighcourtmaybepleased to quash the^{proceedings againstthe Petitioner/ Respondent No 5' in DVC No 64} of 2o2o on the file^{of lV AdditionalJunior civil Judgecum Xll Additional} Metropolitan Magistrate^{at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{HighCourtmaybe pleased} to stay of all proceedings against the Petitloner / Respondent^{No: 5, in DVC No. 64} of 2020 on the file of lV Additional Junior Civii Judge cum Xll Additional Itrletropolitan l\4agistrate, at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District,^pending disposal of Quash proceedings^pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Rama Brahmma, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of the Respondent No.1 not appearing in^person or by Advocate.

¶17

CRIMINAL^{PETITiONNO: 1654OF 2021}

¶18

Between:

¶19

Bru;ffi 'I-t.$.{ih'Jfl,?"t'tr'"0ir"t;iklt"ft^{i%fl :[sail*e"'ta}

¶20

"'Petitioner/ResPondent^No'6

¶21

AND

¶22

'i',filffi::r,l":a1i,$q-t#:'.i'l'ffi{ffi ili'n+*'j'fffi #'Hi' Sagar^{Heights, Roat} o72'

¶23

" 'RespondenuDefacto^complainant

¶24

The^{State of Telangana' represented by its Public ProsecutorHighCourt' at} HYderabad'

¶25

"'Res,ondents

¶26

Petition^{under Section482 ol Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstancesstated} intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased to^{quash the proceedings against the Petitioner Respondent No 6' in DVC No 64 of} 2O2OonthefileoflVAdditionalJuniorCivilJudgecumXllAdditionalMetropolitan Magistrate^{at Kukatpally' Ranga Reddy District'}

¶27

t.A. NO:1 OF²⁰²¹

¶28

Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P'Cpraying that in the circumstancesstated} intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto stay^{of all proceedings against the Petitioner/ Respondent No: 6' in DVC No'64} Magistrate, ot2o2OonthefileoflVAdditionalJuniorCivilJudgecumxllAdditionalMetropolit^{at Kukatpally' Ranga ReddyDistrict' pending disposal of Qu} a^sh n proceedings^{pendingdisposalof the above CriminalPetition'}

¶29

This^{Petition coming on for hearing' uponperusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds^{of Criminal petition and uponhearingthe argumentsof Sri R' Rama} Brahmma,^{Advocatefor tne Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor(TG/AP)} on behalf^{of tne Respondent No'2 and of M/s V' Jaya Pradha' Advocate for the} ResPondent^No'1

¶30

The Court^{madethe following:COMMON ORDER}

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶32

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3386 and 1654 of 2O2l

¶33

COMMON ORDER:

¶34

These two Criminal Petitions, under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., are filed by the petitioners/ respondent Nos.s and 6 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.64 of 2O2O on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

¶36

The petitioners in both the petitions are married sisters of the 3rd respondent, in D.V.C.No.64 ol 2O2O, husband of the 1st Respondent herein. A perusal of the application filed under Sections 72 to 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide D.V.C.No.64 of 2O2O, would reveal that there are no allegations, much less specihc allegations against the petitioners in both the petitions. The allegations against them are general in nature. The lst respondent did not seek any specific relief against the petitioners in both the petitions.

¶37

In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Glduthurl Kesarl Kumar a. State of Telanganal

¶38

'^{2o t s} 1zy^nLo 1crl.)^4?oAp

¶39

"14) To sum up the findings

¶40

i) Since the remedies under D.V.Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his po$,ers under Section 28{2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearanco 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 exparte order with the material available. lt^is onlyⁱⁿ the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that the he can insist the^presence of the^perrties even^by adopting coercive measures.

¶41

ii) In vieu' 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 partiesare} not maintainable. It is only^'in exceptional cases like rvitlrout there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(fl of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has alreadl, acquitted them of the allegations^which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case,^tlte respondents can seek for quashment of the procr:edings since continuation oI the proceedings in such instances certaitll.' atnounts^to abuse of process of Court."

¶42

In view of the above discussion and thc observations made by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision,^thesetu'o Criminal Petitions are disposed of, dispensing wit.h the^personal appearance of the petitioners/respondent Nos.s and^{6 respectively} in D.V.C.No.64 of 2O2O^pending on the file of^{XII Additional} Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at^{Kukatpatly.However,it is} made clear that the^{proceedingsin respect of other respondentsin} D.V.C.No.64 ol2O2O may^go on.

¶43

Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any,filed shallstandclosed'}

¶44

Sd/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' Crl) SECTION OFFICER

¶45