IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7734 of 2008 Between: Allu Parvathamma and 7 others .. Petitioners AND Allu Anantalakshmi and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel of for the 1st respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/2nd respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by being implicated as respondents 3 to 10 in DVC No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, at the behest of the 1st respondent herein whose grievance was against her husband, who was alleged by her to have developed illicit intimacy with a girl by name Jyothi. Crime No.54 of 2007 under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code was said to be arising out of the same domestic violence case and the petitioners claimed that petitioners 3 to 5 being the married sisters of the husband of the 1st respondent and petitioners 6 to 8 being their husbands living separately at different places have nothing to do with the husband of the 1st respondent or their family life. The 2nd petitioner is stated to be the brother of the husband, while the 1st petitioner is stated to be his mother. Petitioners 1 and 2 also claimed to have nothing to do with the family life of the 1st respondent and her husband. The material papers on record disclosed that the Domestic Violence Case No.2 of 2008 was filed by the 1st respondent herein against 14 respondents, out of whom respondents 3 to 10 alone are the petitioners, while the petitioner therein is the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent herein in her petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 stated about the events that took place since her marriage with the son of the 1st petitioner herein on 04-05-1984 including the birth of a male child on 01-01-1988 and the husband developing illicit intimacy with a girl Jyothi (11th respondent) in the DVC case, who was brought by her for assistance during her second pregnancy. The 1st respondent herein was making specific reference to respondents 2 to 10 and 12 to 14 only concerning her reporting about the illegal intimacy between her husband and Jyothi and their paying a deaf ear to her request and their threatening her with dire consequences. She claimed that the respondents 2 to 10 to whom she again complained refused to pay any heed to her request and required her and her husband to separate from each other. These are the only two references made by her in the DVC against the petitioners herein in respect of the conjugal life and disharmony that led to the DVC. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value, how the petitioners 1 to 8 herein can be considered to be guilty of any culpable conduct leading to any civil or criminal liability under any special statute or the general law is difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend. On the very allegations in the DVC, the claims of the petitioners herein that they cannot be subjected to any reliefs under the special statute have to be upheld and as, ex facie, their involvement in the case is untenable on fact and in law, the further proceedings against them have to be quashed. Accordingly, the further proceedings in DVC No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, East Godavari District against the petitioners are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-09-2011 Ksn