Telangana High Court
Phaninder Pathri vs . The State Of Telangana on 21 September, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8522 and 8523 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both these Criminal Petitions is one and the same and arise out of the same case, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard the submission of Ms. Kathyaeni Ramshetty, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing respondent No.1 - State. Having regard to the limited request made by learned counsel for the petitioners, issuance of notice to respondent No.2/defacto complainant is felt not necessary.
3. While Crl.P.No.8522 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are initiated against the petitioner, who is arrayed as respondent No.1 in DVC.No.65 of 2022 that stood pending on the file of the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad; Crl.P.No.8523 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are initiated against the petitioners, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in DVC.No.65 of 2022.
2
Dr. CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.8522 and 8523 of 2022
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8522 of 2022 is the husband, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.8523 of 2022 are parents-in-law of respondent No.2 in both the Criminal Petitions. Learned counsel states that respondent No.2 obtained a decree of divorce from respondent No.1 in DVC.No.65 of 2022 and thus, the marriage is dissolved and, indeed, respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the DVC never involved in the family affairs that went on between respondent No.2 herein and her husband. She states that a false case is foisted against the petitioners herein. Learned counsel states that the petitioners are facing much difficulty in attending the Court and, therefore, no further orders in this Criminal Petitions are required, except dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the Domestic Violence Court.
5. This Court, indicating the view that when the relief is sought for invoking the provisions of Sections 18 to 22 of Domestic Violence Act, the presence of the respondents mentioned therein is not required, in the order that is rendered in Criminal Petition No.5840 of 2022, dated 07.7.2022, observed as follows: 3
Dr. CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.8522 and 8523 of 2022 "The proceedings that are undertaken under the DVC Act by the Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for granting various kinds of reliefs as enshrined under Sections 18 to 22 of the DVC Act are more civil in nature and therefore, the personal appearance of the respondents therein for each and every adjournment, in case they are represented by their counsel, is not required."
6. Exhibiting the same view, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
(1) The Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is directed not to insist upon personal appearance of petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions, who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in DVC during the course of proceedings in DVC.No.65 of 2022 that is pending on the file of the said Court, in case they are represented by an Advocate.
(2) However, the above direction does not debar the Court from ordering the personal appearance of the respondents therein, who are petitioners herein, in case their appearance is felt necessary.
Also, this exemption does not apply if the proceedings are commenced under Section 31 of the DVC Act.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 21.09.2022.
Msr 4 Dr. CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.8522 and 8523 of 2022 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8522 and 8523 of 2022 21.09.2022 (Msr)