IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.1935 of 2009 Between: P. Anantha Lakshmi Devamma and another .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for the records in DVC No.18 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa and quash the same. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.R. REDDY KOVVURI, Advocate for the petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and of Sri C. DHARMA REDDY, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and Sri C. Dharma Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 in D.V.C. No.18 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa filed the criminal petition for quashing the proceedings against them. The material papers filed along with the criminal petition show that even according to the report of the Protection Officer, the husband of the 2nd respondent and the present petitioners are residing in different villages and the enquiry report submitted to the Protection Officer also shows that the 2nd respondent was staying alone due to the husband deserting her and there was no allegation against either petitioner. Though the domestic violence case, filled up in the prescribed proforma, states that the petitioners also had committed domestic violence by harassing the 2nd respondent mentally, the further contents of the said domestic violence case show that the grievance of the 2nd respondent is primarily against her husband and the reliefs sought for also cannot be, in any manner, linked with the petitioners, except maybe the relief of protection which she sought for under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has fairly conceded that he has no strong ground to continue the proceedings against the petitioners herein, but only desired that the proceedings against the husband shall be expedited to have a decision on merits at the earliest possible opportunity. There need be no positive direction in this regard, as the very purpose and object of the welfare and beneficial legislation for the protection of women will be, undoubtedly, kept in view by the trial Court in attempting to dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law between the 2nd respondent and her husband with all expedition and urgency that the case deserves, subject, of course, to the overall pendency of cases in the Court. Subject to such observation, the Criminal Petition has to be allowed under the circumstances and accordingly, the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.18 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa against the petitioners are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-08-2009 Svv