IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3047 OF 2019

BETWEEN:-

• 1. Hanumanthu, @ Kanithi Leelavathi, W/o. Ganapathi, aged about ⁵⁸ years House wife resident of Flat No. F-1/F-2 Sai Sagar Sadhan Apartments Near Water Tank, Indira Nagar colony Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
• 2. Kanithi Ganapathi, s/o Late Jogi Naidu aged about 59 years resident of Flat No. F-1/F-2 Sai Sagar Sadhan Apartments Near Water Tank, Indira Nagar colony Srikakulam, Srikakulam district

...PETITIONER

AND

• 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by Public Prosecutor High Court Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
• 2. Hanumanthu Rajyalakshmi, W/o. Hanumanthu Jayaram, aged about 54 years resident of Flat No. F-1 Sai Sagar Sadhan Apartments Near Water Tank, Indira Nagar Colony Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court to quash the D.V.C.No.01 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam under Section 9(b) and 37(2)( c) of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ²⁰⁰⁵ (43 of 2005) Dt.02.01.2019.

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2019

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance in so far against the petitioners herein pursuant to the D.V.C.No.01 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam Dt.02.01.2019.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VINOD KUMAR TARLADA, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

The Court made the followingiORDER

APHC010140282019

очо

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3333]

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3047/2019

Between:

Hanumanthu @ Kanithi Leelavathi and another ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

State of A.P. and another

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") by the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.01 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Srikakulam.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant $2.$ Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing for sometime, gave up 3. the main prayer for quashing and confined to the relief of seeking dispensing with the presence of the petitioners in the aforesaid D.V.C.

This Court, in "Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of 4. Telangana and Ors.¹" laid down certain guidelines to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. Case in paragraph 14, reads as under :

To sum up the findings: $"14)$

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 nonappearance 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.

$\lceil$

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

$^{1}$ 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP)

continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court. "

Acceding to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners and without touching the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the present criminal petition at the admission itself, directing the Court concerned to follow the guidelines prescribed in Giduthuri Kesari 5. Kumar*s case (referred supra). Accordingly, the Court concerned is directed to adhere to the guidelines formulated by this Court in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar*s case (referred supra). It would however be open to the Trial Court to direct the personal presence of all or any one of the petitioners whenever required.

6. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition shall stand closed.

Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ^ ^A ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam.

2. One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUTf

4. The Section Officer, Criminaf Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

5. Three C.D Copies.

SSL

ns

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/11/2024

ORDER

CRLP.NO.3047 OF 2019

CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF.