AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC No.6 of 2026 on the file of the IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hyderabad.
Heard Ms.P.Swetha, learned counsel, representing Mr.Safdar Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 filed DVC No.6 of 2026 implicating the petitioners as respondent Nos.2 and 3 by making omnibus allegations and claiming various reliefs, though there is no domestic relationship between petitioners and respondent No.2. Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short 'the Act') are not attracted. The entire allegations are levelled against respondent No.1 in DVC No.6 of 2026 and therefore, respondent No.2 is not entitled to seek any relief much less the relief sought under Sections 18 to 20, 22 and 23 of the Act. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law.
This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are parents of respondent No.1 in DVC No.6 of 2026 and respondent No.2 is daughter-in-law of the petitioners. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the marital relationship with respondent No.1 in DVC No.6 of 2026 is continuing till date. Respondent No.2 sought various reliefs in DVC No.6 of 2026 and one of such reliefs is that seeking direction to the respondents therein to return the dowry amount and marriage expenses of Rs.19,50,000/-. Whether respondent No.2 is entitled to the relief sought in the complaint, whether any domestic relationship between respondent No.2 and the petitioners, as on the date of filing DVC No.6 of 2026, are disputed facts and the same have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full fledged trial. Hence, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged and pleaded in the present Criminal Petition are not within the purview of Section 528 of the BNSS. This case is not comes within the ambit of rarest of rare cases to exercise the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings in DVC.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a senior citizen and petitioner No.2 is a house-wife and both of them are residing at Bihar and they have to travel long distance to appear before the trial Court at Hyderabad. The matter before the trial Court has not ripened for trial. Unless their presence is dispensed with, they will be put to great hardship.
Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case duly taking into consideration the age and occupation of the petitioners as well as their residence, the presence of the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 in DVC No.6 of 2026 on the file of the learned IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, is dispensed with, subject to the condition that they shall be represented through their counsel on each and every date of hearing. If the presence of the petitioners is required, they shall appear before the trial Court. In case of their non-appearance on the specific date fixed by the trial Court for their appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.