IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3900 OF 2009 Between: Shaik Abdul Jilani & Ors. .. Petitioners-Accused V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. .. Respondents-Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 Sri E. Srinivas for R-2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3900 OF 2009 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the entire proceedings in DVC.No. 10 of 2008 on the file of the Court of First Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur, Guntur district. 2. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent. 3. The second respondent is the wife of Abdul Samad Basha. She gave a complaint to the Protection Officer, who in turn submitted a report to the learned Magistrate and basing on the said report, DVC.No. 10 of 2008 was registered against all the close relatives of the husband of second respondent. They were made accused in the DVC filed by the second respondent alleging that they have been harassing her with a demand to get additional dowry and also alleging that they have been forced to vacate the portion of the house in which she and her husband have been living. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the father of the second respondent’s husband executed a settlement deed giving certain properties to the husband of the second respondent as well as the other family members in so far as item No.2 in the settlement deed, it was given to the second respondent’s husband and that the petitioners have nothing to do with the said property and they never harassed the second respondent with a demand to get additional dowry. From the facts narrated in the complaint filed by the second respondent, it seems that she and her husband have been living separately from the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this court that on the very same allegation a crime was registered by the police and thereafter after completing the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that only to get more property, the second respondent and her husband colluded with each other and the second respondent filed a case under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against all the close relatives of her husband with a view to coerce and make them to come to the terms and give some more property to them. It is crucial to note that the husband of the second respondent was not made as an accused. All the petitioners are living separately from the second respondent and her husband. Perusal of the complaint shows exaggerated allegations. The allegations are only vague and general allegations. Involving all the family members in a case of this nature is nothing but abuse of process of law. When the allegations are prima facie found to be false and domestic violence case is found to be designed to achieve certain desired object, the said practice should be deprecated. 5. For all the above mentioned reasons, the entire proceedings in DVC.No. 10 of 20098 on the file of the Court of First Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur, Guntur District, are hereby quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 20-10-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3900 OF 2009 CIRCULATION NO. 32 DATE 20-10-2011 COURT MASTER: I s L COMPUTER NO. 43