THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-respondent

Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC No.14 of 2025, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’) on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Medak.

2. Heard Mr. Arigela Mahesh, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the

respondent No.2 is the wife of the petitioner No.1 and that she is harassing the petitioners herein bearing grudge against them. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 has earlier filed a complaint for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and in addition, the present case under DV Act is also filed. He further submitted that except bald statements, no allegations are made against the petitioners, particularly, against the mother of petitioner No.1, who is petitioner No.4 herein. He further submitted that the total complaint is full of concocted stories and that in fact, the marriage was

performed in the year 2024 and subsequent to the marriage, the de facto complainant has got a government job, therefore, she wants to leave the society of the husband and that is the reason the present complaint is filed. He, therefore, submitted that she is in the habit of filing cases and thus, has invented the present case with all false allegations and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the allegations point out the offence under DV Act against the petitioners as they have continuously harassed the de facto complainant in many ways and that the said incidents of harassment and the disputes are the questions of fact and are triable issues, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record discloses that that the petitioner No.1 used to consume alcohol daily and harass the respondent No.2 both physically and mentally. Further, he always insisted the respondent No.2 to wear the old clothes of his mother and that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 used to always quarrel with the respondent No.2 on petty issues. On learning that the respondent No.2 is going to be a government servant, the petitioners have accepted the marriage proposal and that subsequent to the marriage, she got two job opportunities, one is Sate Government job as Assistant Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department and another is Central Service as a Lecturer in Technical Department. The petitioners insisted her to join in the Engineering Service, but not the Central Service. Further, she was permitted to go to her mother’s house in September, 2024 and when she was at her mother’s house also, the petitioners continued their harassment through phone calls stating that they will not permit her to join the matrimonial home. Thus, the allegations point out prima facie case against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations are false and that just to leave the society of the petitioners, the respondent No.2 filed the present case. The alleged occurrence of incidents and the truth or otherwise in the allegations need to be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court, provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing and they shall appear before the trial court as and when their presence is required.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 17, 2025 KTL