HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: DV ACT 2005 is not retrospective

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAYITHESECONDDAYOFAUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 3714 of 2007
Between:
1 U.U. Thimmanna, Slo U. U. Ayyanna
2 U.U. Sankaramma, W/o U. U. Thimmanna
3 U.U. Sreenivasulu, Slo U. U. Thimmanna
4 U.U. Paramesh, Slo U. U. Thimmanna
5 U.U.Ramesh, Slo U. U. Thimmanna
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 Smt. U.U. Sandhya, Dlo U.M. Venkateswarlu
2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.
I
..... RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 482 of the Cr1.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the quash proceedings filed therewith, the High
Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No. 1 of 2007
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool
District.
The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the
Petition and the quash proceedings filed in support thereof and upon
hearing the arguments of Sri. C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the
Petitioner and of Smt. P. Rajeswari, Advocate for the Respondent No.1
and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of State.
The Court made the following:ORDER
THE HONt BLE SRI JUSTICE ' K . C . BEANU
CRIMINAL PETITION N0.3714 OF 2007.
O-RDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the
petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2007 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemrniganur, Kurnool
District.
1
Heard both the counsel.
Admittedly, husband of the complainant died on
14-06-2004 and since then the de facto complainant is
not residing with the petitioners. The shared household
is defined under Section 2 (s) of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short
'the Act'), which reads as follows:
' 'shared household' means a household where the
person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived
in a domestic relationship either singly or along
with the respondent and includes such a household
whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the
aggrieved person and the respondent or owned or
tenanted by either of them in respect of which
either the aggrieved peSrson or the respondent or
both jointly or singly have any right, title,
interest or equity and includes such a household
which may belong to the joint family of which the
respondent is a member, irrespective of whether
the respondent or the aggrieved person has any
right, title or interest in the shared
household. "
Domestic relationship is defined under Section 2
( E ) of the Act, which reads as follows:
" 'domestic relationship' means a relationship
between two persons who live or have, at any
point of time, lived together in a shared ,
household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a
relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption
or are family members living together a3 a joint
family."
On the face of the allegations in the complaint,
the de facto complainant is not residing with the
petitioners. She is ' residing in House No.2361, Near
M.G. Petrol, Yemmiganur, whereas petitioners 1 and 2
have been residing in House No. 3/31, Uppara street,
Yemmiganur, 3 r" petitioner .i. s rcaidi.nq n I;
Mahaboobnagar, 4th petitioner is residing at
H.No.S/2267,Laxmipeta, Yemmiganur and 5th petitioner is
rcsi di nq at: l l . N o . 3/31, tlppata Street, Yemmiqanur.
Admittedly, the de facto complainant filed a suit in
O.S. No.111 of 2005, which is pending, She also filed
a case in C.C.No.94 of 2005 under Section 498-A IPC,
which is pending trial before the Judl. Magistrate of
I Class, Yemmiganur. The domestic incident report does
not disclose any of the acts of violence that were
C A L Lc.r~lpLcd or1 t i cornplainant after 26-10-2006. There
is no dispute that the Act came into effect when the
Central Government appoints 26-10-2006 as the date on
which the Act was came into force. For acts of
violence, certain penal provisions are incorporated.
Therefore, it is a fundamental principle of law that
any penal provision has no retrospective operation,
o n l y t ) r ~ o : ; ~ ) c ' c I . i v c . 'I'llere is 110 ctlleyation either in the
report or in the statement or in the complaint of the
lSt respondent with regard to the acts of domestic
violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.
Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the
petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed
quashing the proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2007 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Yemrniganur, Kurnool District.
SO/-N.MURALIDHAR RAO
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
I/ TRUE COPY N
SECTION OFFICER
To
,l.Th e Judicial First Class Magistrate , Yemmiganur, Kurnool District
2. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT)
3. Two CD copies
4. One CC to Sri. C. Praveen Kumar, Advocate (OPUC).
5. One CC to Smt. P. Rajeswari, Advocate (OPUC).
Prk w
HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-08-2007
ORDER
CRL.P. NO. 3714 OF 2007
Allowing the Petition.