Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
P. Venkatrajam - Appellants
Vs.
State - Respondent
Crl. P. No. 8661 of 2013
Decided On: 15.04.2014
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - SECTION 3 - COURT'S JURISDICTION - SECTION 27 - INTERPRETATION - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - SECTION 482 CRPC - SCOPE - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS - CONDITIONS - COURT'S DISCRETION - CASE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) on grounds of abuse of process of law. The court analyzed the complaint and found specific instances of domestic violence alleged against the mother-in-law (petitioner No. 2/respondent No. 3), including verbal abuse, demand for dowry, and pouring hot oil. However, the allegations against the father-in-law and brother-in-law (petitioners Nos. 1 and 3/respondents Nos. 2 and 4) were vague and omnibus. The court held that continuation of proceedings against them would be an abuse of process of law and dismissed the petition insofar as they were concerned. As for the mother-in-law, the court found that specific instances of domestic violence were alleged against her and that no miscarriage of justice would be caused by continuing the proceedings against her. The court allowed the petition insofar as she was concerned.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a woman, filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law, alleging domestic violence. The petitioners, the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law, filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the allegations were vague and omnibus, and that the court lacked jurisdiction as most of the acts of domestic violence took place in the United States.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the mother-in-law were specific and credible, while the allegations against the father-in-law and brother-in-law were vague and omnibus. The court also found that the court had jurisdiction to try the offenses as the complainant resided in India and the DV Act conferred jurisdiction on the court even if the domestic violence took place outside India.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the complaint taken as a whole indicate any acts of domestic violence by the petitioners who are the parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant? 2. Whether Courts in India can try the offence when most of the acts of domestic violence took place in USA? 3. Whether continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations against the mother-in-law were specific and credible, while the allegations against the father-in-law and brother-in-law were vague and omnibus. The court relied on the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act and the Supreme Court's judgments in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another and Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another to conclude that the allegations against the mother-in-law constituted domestic violence. 2. The court held that the court had jurisdiction to try the offenses as the complainant resided in India and the DV Act conferred jurisdiction on the court even if the domestic violence took place outside India. The court relied on Section 27 of the DV Act to support its conclusion. 3. The court held that continuation of proceedings against the father-in-law and brother-in-law would be an abuse of process of law as the allegations against them were vague and omnibus. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti to support its conclusion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition insofar as the father-in-law and brother-in-law were concerned and dismissed the petition insofar as the mother-in-law was concerned.
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
1. The petitioners who are respondents 2 to 4 in DVC No. 1/2013 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of said proceedings. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in DVC.
2. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 9(b) and 37(2)(e) of the Protection from Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short "the Act") seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act.
3. The averments in the report are as under: The second respondent is the father-in-law, the third respondent is the mother-in-law of the complainant and the fourth respondent is the son of the second and third respondents. The marriage between the complainant and the first respondent took place on 21-8-2008. At the time of marriage, 20 tolas gold, 2½ kgs silver and 300 sq.yards of plot were given as dowry. A week thereafter i.e., 27-8-2008 a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was paid as additional dowry and on 28-8-2008 the first respondent left to USA. Thereafter, the complainant started living in her in-law's house where her mother-in-law i.e., the third respondent subjected her to cruelty stating that her son who was earning Rs. 5 lakhs per month would have got a better and beautiful girl than the complainant. She used to call her by different names and put her to mental torture. However, the parents of the complainant purchased a ticket to send the complainant to USA. Prior to obtaining the ticket, the respondents 2 and 3 are alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for Visa documents which was handed over to the fourth respondent on 16-9-2008. On receipt of the said money, he furnished the visa documents to the complainant. On one occasion, the third respondent poured hot oil on the complainant, for which the complainant got herself treated till 20-10-2008. It is further alleged that before leaving India her parents-in-law forced the complainant to remove four of her teeth and get the same capped. After the complainant joined her husband in USA, she was constantly harassed to get money from her parents. The respondents 2 to 4 used to call the complainant and demanded her to sell the property and give the sale proceeds to them. The respondents 2 and 3 used to call the complainant and abuse her on the ground that she was not having any job and not earning any money. On coming to know about the alleged harassment, the parents of the complainant sold the land. The respondents in DVC demanded her to get money and when refused, the first respondent is alleged to have beat her many times and insulted for not providing him with Rs. 2 lakhs. On 4-6-2011 when the complainant was pregnant the first respondent tried to kill the complainant by choking her neck. It is alleged that the first respondent wanted to kill the baby but the complainant was lucky enough to escape. With the help of scholarship, the complainant did her Master's Degree. At the time of delivery her mother joined her in USA. The complainant and her mother were put to torture by not paying any money for hospital expenses. The complaint also indicates that the college has paid all the expenses for the delivery. On 7-12-2011 the complainant delivered a baby and got herself discharged from the hospital on 9-12-2011, on which date, the first respondent is said to have beat her and necked her out the house. She took shelter in a neighbour's house and at bout 4 a.m. came inside the house. On 4-4-2012 the first respondent is said to have taken the child into his custody and left to India without the consent of the complainant. On 12-4-2014, the first respondent left the child in front of the house of the complainant's mother, returned back to USA and sent the complainant out of the house. The complainant took refuge in a women's organization which helped her to get back to India to meet the child. It is alleged that every day, the complainan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
