THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5140 of 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein who is the fifth respondent in DVC No.7 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a third party and she is unnecessarily dragged into the affairs between the second respondent herein and first respondent in the DVC and there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent herein. He further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that she was making phone calls through the cell phone of first respondent in the DVC and making false propaganda and except that there is no other allegation against the petitioner. He submitted that in order to attract the provisions of DVC, there must be specific material but the allegations made against the petitioner would no way attracts the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. He further submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Vijayawada whereas the second respondent herein and the other respondents in DVC are residents of Khammam and the present petition is filed only to harass the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, advocate for the second respondent submitted that according to the complaint allegations, the petitioner herein entered into the life of second respondent herein and first respondent in the DVC and these aspects have to be enquired.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition. The main reliefs claimed in the petition filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act are for a protection order under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19 and monetary reliefs under Section 20.
6. For these reliefs the petitioner herein is no way concerned because from the own averments of the petition she is a third party and she is no way related to the husband of the second respondent herein. As rightly pointed out by the advocate for the petitioner, to make the petitioner liable for the provisions of DVC, the second respondent must prima facie show that the petitioner herein is related to the husband of the second respondent. Section 2(q) of the Act define respondent according to which there must be domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and the respondent should be a male person. There is a proviso to the definition where a female person can also be implicated but there shall be relationship of marriage or she should be a relative of the husband. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither a relative of the husband of the second respondent nor she had any domestic relationship either with the second respondent herein or with the first respondent in the DVC.
7. On a perusal of the complaint allegations, it is clear that the petitioner is unnecessarily dragged and shown as respondent No.5 in the DVC and the act of making phone calls either threatening or using abusive words would no way attract the provisions of protection of women from domestic violence Act. Therefore, continuing such proceedings against the petitioner would amount of abuse of process of Court.
8. For these reasons, the petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner herein and who is fifth respondent in DVC No.7 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, are quashed.
01st July, 2014 KSM _ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR