K VEERABHADRA RAO Vs. SATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal petition is directed against the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, against the petitioners who desire quashing of further proceedings against them in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C").

(2.) The second respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act"), against all the three petitioners herein alleging that petitioners 1 and 2 approached the father of the second respondent with a proposal to get her married to the third petitioner in February, 2002, and the father of the second respondent agreed to give 500 grams of gold to the second respondent and 120 grams of gold to the third petitioner apart from 3 kgs of silver at the time of the marriage. After the fixation of the marriage, the petitioners were alleged to have put forward various demands towards 'Adapaduchu Katnam', 'Talli Katnam', 'Laanchanaalu' to relatives, valuable gifts to relatives and friends, etc., which were complied with by the father of the second respondent by paying Rs.60,000/- in cash and getting sarees worth Rs.40,000/- . The father of the second respondent spent Rs.3,98,000/- towards gifts and 'Laanchanaalu' and after the marriage in June, 2002, at an expense of Rs.3,00,000/- , the second respondent went to Agiripalli, Krishna District, to the matrimonial home where all the ornaments were kept with petitioners 1 and 2 for safeguarding. The second respondent's father was claimed to have given various other presents shown in the Annexures attached to the domestic violence petition. The second respondent claimed that the third petitioner started torturing her since he put up the family at Chennai in September, 2002, and illegal intimacy developed by the third petitioner with one Vijaya Lakshmi, resulted in serious mental agony to the second respondent. The first and second petitioners did not respond to the request of the parents of the second respondent to set right the matrimonial life of the second respondent. The petitioners 1 to 3 were claimed to be quarrelling with the second respondent for petty things and to be not allowing her even to prepare food. An attempt against her life in the last week of November, 2002, by the petitioners was also alleged and in the second week of December, 2002, the second respondent was allegedly to be attempted to be killed by setting fire to cooking gas. The petitioners were alleged to be abusing the second respondent in filthy language and to be not even attending to her medical needs during sickness. Several Panchayats were claimed to have been held between the parties, but in vain. Crime No.31 of 2003 of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle, under Section 498A read with Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was claimed to have been registered on a complaint to the police against the petitioners herein and others. The petition by the accused to quash the proceedings was stated to have been dismissed by the High Court. The second respondent further claimed that the third petitioner failed to maintain her and in spite of being a qualified Chartered Accountant, she was disabled from carrying on her profession. The gold jewellery and other valuable articles were claimed to have not been returned and in view of the various acts of domestic violence, the second respondent sought for the reliefs of return of gold jewellery, silver articles and cash shown in Annexures -A to D, payment of travelling expenses shown in Annexure -E, monetary reliefs as shown in Annexure -F and punishment of the petitioners herein for the offences committed by them if they fail to comply with the orders of the Court.

(3.) The Magistrate taking cognizance of the domestic violence case and proceeding with it, is the subject of challenge by the petitioners herein contending that O.P.No.56 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, at the instance of the second respondent, for divorce and permanent alimony and for return of gold jewellery, ended in an order on merits directing the third petitioner to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards the value of the gold jewellery, silver ornaments, household articles, etc. C.M.A.No.1024 of 2009 by the third petitioner and C.M.A.No.1065 of 2009 by the second respondent against the said order are pending. The relief claimed in the domestic violence case and in O.P.No.56 of 2007 is identical concerning the refund of the amount paid at the time of the marriage and when a competent civil Court adjudicated the matter, the domestic violence case is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petitioners desired the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2006 to be quashed.