HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8938 OF 2012 Dated 11-9-2014 Between:
Shri G.Rajaiah and others.
..Petitioners.
And:
The State of A.P. through learned Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8938 OF 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District.
Petitioners herein are respondents 2 to 4 in the above referred D.V.C.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for petitioners submitted that first petitioner is brother of R.1, second petitioner is sister-in-law of R.1 i.e., wife of first petitioner and third petitioner is son of late brother of first respondent and there are no allegations against the petitioners herein, particularly, specific allegations attracting the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
He further submitted that all the reliefs claimed in the petition are only against R.1 i.e., husband and no reliefs are claimed against the petitioners. He further submitted that only allegation made in the complaint against the petitioners is that these petitioners colluded with R.1 with a common dishonest intention to cause domestic violence.
He further submitted that even the protection Officer suggested the releifs to second respondent herein are only monetary reliefs which are also against the husband only and therefore, proceedings against the petitioners herein are to be quashed.
In support of his argument, he relied on a decision of this court in MOHAMMAD MAQEENUDDIN AHMED AND
[1]
ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. AND ANR. ( ).
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this petition is whether the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District can be quashed or not?
POINT:
I have perused the material papers filed along with quash petition. In the first para of the complaint, relationship of the parties is described, according to which, the first petitioner is elder brother of husband of second respondent herein, second petitioner is wife of first petitioner and third petitioner is son of late G.Krishnaiah who is eldest brother of husband of second respondent herein.
In the entire complaint, allegations are against the husband who is the first respondent in D.V.C. and the main grievance of the second respondent herein is non- payment of money for maintenance of herself and her son.
As rightly pointed out by advocate for petitioners, there are no allegations against the petitioners attracting any of the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. Even the reliefs claimed in the petition are monetary reliefs, as rightly pointed out, these petitioners are nothing to do with the monetary claim of second respondent. This court in a similar set of facts observed that when the averments of the complaint reveal no allegations against the relatives of the husband of the aggrieved party and the reliefs sought were only against the husband, the proceedings are to be quashed.
On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that since there are no allegations against the petitioners leave alone specific allegations and as all the reliefs claimed are against the husband, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of court, therefore, this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed in respect of petitioners who are respondents 2 to 4 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2012 and the proceeding against these petitioners are hereby quashed.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 11-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL PETITION No.8938 OF 2012 Dated 11-9-2014
[1] 2007 CRI.L.J.3361