1 APHC010012562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 955/2025 Between: Gogineni Gopal Rao, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINIVASULU P Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., by the petitioner herein / respondent No.2 to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.53 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Eluru. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for sometime, gave up the main prayer for quashing and confined to the relief of seeking dispensing with the presence of the petitioner in the aforesaid D.V.C. 4. This Court, in “Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors. 1 ” laid down certain guidelines to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. Case in paragraph 14, reads as under : “14) To sum up the findings: i) 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 non-appearance 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. 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 continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.” 1 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 (AP) 3 5. Acceding to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 the petitioner whenever is required. 6. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Pmk 4 66 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.955 of 2025 Date: 31.01.2025 Pmk