ORDER 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. 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 complainant has been receiving threatening calls putting her in fear. Basing on these allegations, the present complaint is filed seeking various reliefs under the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that even accepting the allegations in the complaint to be true, the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs under the Act. Basing on these allegations, the present complaint is filed seeking various reliefs under the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that even accepting the allegations in the complaint to be true, the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs under the Act. According to him, 50 days after the marriage, the complainant joined the matrimonial company of her husband in USA. A child was born, who was later brought to India and was given in custody to the parents of the complainant. Disputes arose between the first respondent and the complainant which led to filing of a petition in the District Court of 317th Judicial District, Jefferson Country, Texas (USA) vide case No. C-215-892 for custody of the child and the same was decreed on 17-9-2012. It is said that the complainant violated the conditions of the orders by not handing over the child which made the court to proceed against the complainant under the contempt of court. With a view to avoid punishment of detention, the complainant is said to have left USA. It is further submitted that having subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the court in USA and having suffered an order in the said court, the complainant initiated the present proceedings only with a mala fide intention. The counsel for the petitioners submits that with a view to prevent the husband from resorting to coercive methods in the contempt proceedings, the complainant also lodged a report against the husband for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. She also filed OP No. 1495/2012 seeking legal custody of her minor child. In view of the above, he submits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the allegations in the complaint do make out a case of domestic violence and as such the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought by her. 6. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant has filed several cases namely, DVC No. 1/2013, a report for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC (which is the subject matter of Cr. No. 800/2012 of Rajendranagar Police Station), and an OP No. 1495/2012 seeking legal custody of the child with a view to harass the petitioners. No. 800/2012 of Rajendranagar Police Station), and an OP No. 1495/2012 seeking legal custody of the child with a view to harass the petitioners. According to him, in none of the cases, she revealed the orders passed by the Court in USA and pleads that non disclosure of the orders suffered by her in USA is sufficient to reject the DVC. 7. Before proceeding further it may useful to refer to the meaning of the word "domestic violence" as defined under Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under: "3. Definition of domestic violence.- For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it- (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I. - For the purposes of this section,- (i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force; (ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman; (iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested. (iv) "economic abuse" includes- (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance; (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. Explanation II.- For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes" domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. 8. A reading of Sections 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Act makes it clear that one of the main ingredients to be established for claiming reliefs under the provisions of the Act is that there should be domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. 9. In Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2013 (2) ALT (Crl.) 21 (SC) : 2013 (3) SCJ 291 : (2012) 10 SCC 741 the Apex Court has categorically held that "casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify in taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding". 10. 10. While dealing with matrimonial litigation, the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another 2010 (3) ALT (Crl.) 99 (SC) : 2010 (6) SCJ 609 : (2010) 7 SCC 667 , observed thus: "Exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. The Supreme Court pointed out that the allegations in the complaint should be scrutinized with great care and circumspection especially against the husband's relatives, who were living in different cities, who were never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant. The Supreme Court reminded the learned members of the Bar and Bench of their social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. It made a recommendation to the Parliament emphasizing the need for serious re-look at the entire provision of Section 498A IPC." 11. The questions that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the averments 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? 12. At first blush the allegations in the complaint appeared to have been directed only against the husband when the complainant and the first respondent were staying in USA. However, a close scrutiny of the complaint would show that a week after the marriage, additional dowry of Rs. 6 lakhs was given to the family of the husband (first respondent). Thereafter, the complainant started living in her in-law's house where her mother-in-law subjected her to all sorts of harassment. Though the complaint does not refer to physical assault but reveals that the complainant was addressed in most abusive and filthy language. On the pretext of providing visa documents the third respondent in DVC along with her son collected a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakh from the father of the complainant. The complaint also refers to an instance of pouring hot oil on the complainant by the second respondent. The acts of pouring hot oil, abusing the complainant in filthy language, demanding and collecting a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh for visa documents took place within the jurisdiction of the court trying the offences. The complaint also refers to an instance of pouring hot oil on the complainant by the second respondent. The acts of pouring hot oil, abusing the complainant in filthy language, demanding and collecting a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh for visa documents took place within the jurisdiction of the court trying the offences. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to try the offences since the acts of domestic violence took place outside India cannot be accepted. Apart from that Section 27 of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Court within whose limits the person aggrieved resides temporarily or permanently or is employed or carries on business even if domestic violence takes place outside India. Therefore, it cannot be said that VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, has no jurisdiction to try the offence. 13. The next question that falls for consideration is whether all the petitioners are liable for the reliefs claimed. 14. As stated above, specific instances of domestic violence are alleged against mother-in-law. Though the allegation in the report show that mother-in-law and the father-in-law who are the third and fourth respondents in DVC harassed the complainant by getting her four teeth removed, the same appears to be highly improbable. It is of common knowledge that the teeth can not be removed without the consent and co-operation of the patient. Therefore, the said allegation, on the face of it, appears to be absurd and unbelievable. 15. Coming to the allegation made against the third petitioner who was shown as second respondent in DVC, all the allegations attributed to him are vague and omnibus. He along with his parents is alleged to have demanded the complainant to sell away her property and get money. The said demand was made on telephone while she was in USA. 15. Coming to the allegation made against the third petitioner who was shown as second respondent in DVC, all the allegations attributed to him are vague and omnibus. He along with his parents is alleged to have demanded the complainant to sell away her property and get money. The said demand was made on telephone while she was in USA. At this stage, it may be useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 146 (SC) : 2010 (1) SCJ 641 : 2009 (4) JCC 3021 , wherein, the Apex Court while dealing with a case where the parents-in-law of the respondent were shown as accused for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 114 of IPC held that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. The Apex Court found that the allegations in the said complaint were vague, as it does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by them in the commission of crime. In the circumstances, the Apex Court found that continuation of proceedings against the in-laws would be an abuse of process of law. 16. In the instance case, the complaint is silent as to when, which month and during which period the accused demanded the complainant to sell her property. Since the allegations are vague and not specific, I am of the view that continuation of proceedings against respondents 2 and 4 would be an abuse of process of law as no relief can be claimed against them. Since specific instances of domestic violence are directed against the petitioner No. 2/respondent No. 3 in DVC, this court is of the opinion that no miscarriage of justice would be caused if the proceedings against her are continued. 17. Since specific instances of domestic violence are directed against the petitioner No. 2/respondent No. 3 in DVC, this court is of the opinion that no miscarriage of justice would be caused if the proceedings against her are continued. 17. It is true that court in America has passed orders against the second respondent and it may also be true that by violating the orders passed by the American Court the second respondent came down to India without producing the child. But the Law in India gives her a right to claim reliefs under the provisions of the Act, claim maintenance under Section 125 C.F.C., and also lodge a report for an offence punishable under Section 498A and the courts have to proceed on the basis of the material available in accordance with law. Therefore, I am of the view that violating the orders passed by a Court in USA does not prevent or debar the complainant from initiating the present proceedings, which she is entitled to do under the Indian law. Accordingly, the criminal petition filed for quashing of the proceedings in DVC No. 1/2013 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, is hereby allowed insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 and 3/R-2 and R-4 and the same is dismissed insofar as petitioner No. 2/respondent No. 3. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.