Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Yaganti Bhagyalakshmi, vs Yaganti Valli Sindhu Priya, on 2 December, 2024
APHC010175132019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3475/2019
Between:
Yaganti Bhagyalakshmi, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
Yaganti Valli Sindhu Priya and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. N PAVAN KUMAR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition came to be filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.166 of 2017,
on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/Accused Nos.2
and 3 are the in-laws of the respondent No.1/de-facto complainant.
While the matter being so, the respondent No.1 had filed a case in
D.V.C.No.166 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Vijayawada against the petitioners herein on the sole ground
that the petitioners are instigating the husband of the respondent No.1,
who is none other than the son of the petitioners herein to harass the
respondent No.1. It is further stated that except for few days after her
marriage with the son of the petitioners herein, the respondent No.1 had
never stayed with the petitioners and even as per the complaint filed by
the respondent No.1, there is no specific allegation stating that the
respondent No.1 was harassed by the petitioners during her stay with
them and as such requested this Court to quash the proceedings in
D.V.C.No.166 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Vijayawada.
3. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner had produced a copy of Judgment dated 16.02.2015
passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.7289 of 2014 and batch, wherein, under
similar circumstances this Court has passed a common order and held
as follows:
“13) …..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.”
5. On a perusal of the Judgment stated supra, this Court is of the
opinion that the proceedings in D.V.C.No.166 of 2017, on the file of the I
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, which are being
challenged in the present Criminal Petition cannot be quashed as
against the petitioners. Further this Court in a case of “Giduthuri Kesari
Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Telangana and Ors.1” had laid down
certain guidelines to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. Case in paragraph
14, reads as under :
"14) To sum up the findings:
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 exparte 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.
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 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.”
6. In view of the law laid down in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. vs.
State of Telangana and Ors., this Court feels it appropriate to dispose to
the present Criminal Petition by dispensing with the presence of the
petitioners herein before the trial Court. It would however be open to the
trial Court to direct the personal presence of all or any one of the
petitioners whenever required.
1
2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP)
7. With the above directions, the present Criminal Petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition
shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 02.12.2024
SRT
336
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Crl.P.No.3475 of 2019
Date: 02.12.2024
SRT