HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2053 OF 2007 Date: 05.03.2010 Between: Sajja Ravindra Babu and another ……Petitioners And: Peddi Surekha and 2 others ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2053 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the petitioners 1 and 2/respondents 2 and 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in Domestic Violence Act Case No.2 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. The 1st respondent herein is the defacto-complainant/victim in this case. She gave report dated 17.01.2007 to the 2nd respondent herein who is the Protection Officer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). After making necessary enquiry, the 2nd respondent herein filed the case against three persons including the petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Parties in this order will be referred to hereinafter as per their array in the lower court. The 1st respondent is husband of the defacto-complainant/victim. The 2nd respondent/1st petitioner herein is brother and 3rd respondent/2nd petitioner herein is father of the 1st respondent. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there are absolutely no allegations of domestic violence against the respondents 2 and 3 and that they were unnecessarily impleaded in the case filed before the lower court. For noting allegations against the respondents 2 and 3/petitioners 1 and 2 herein, one has to see Form Nos.I and II filed by the Protection Officer before the Magistrate. The court has to go into averments in the complaint/report given by the victim women to the Protection Officer. Marriage of the defacto-complainant with the 1st respondent took place on 09.02.2000. It is alleged that after marriage, the 1st respondent insisted that she should join and do some job at Singapore for the sake of money and that therefore, she was constrained to join computer course at Hyderabad staying in house of her parents-in-law. It is her allegation that her husband and his family members treated her inhumanly and that during his ten days stay after marriage, the 1st respondent started showing indifferent attitude, irritation and dislike towards her for no fault of her and came out with true colors consuming alcohol, smoking, gutka etc., and that the 1st respondent has always been vulgar and abusive. She makes several other allegations against her husband. According to the defacto-complainant, on 10.02.2006, without her knowledge and consent, the 1st respondent took away up their child from school and kept him at his native place i.e., Atkur village and her husband demanded heavy ransom for exchange of the child and the child was restituted to her with the intervention of Nacharam Police. On a reading of entire complaint of the victim, it is evident that though her main grievance is against her husband who is the 1st respondent, it is her further complaint that the 1st respondent was doing all these activities in connivance with his family members who are the respondents 2 and 3/petitioners 1 and 2 herein. It is a matter to be gone into by the lower court after enquiry during which time the parties may be willing to lead evidence if any. At this state, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in the case pending in the lower court in so far as the respondents 2 and 3/petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:05.03.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO2053 OF 2007 Date: 05.03.2010 Gk.