HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.5605 OF 2009 DATE: 20.01.2011 BETWEEN: Varnakavi Surapu Raju and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradsh and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.5605 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. Though served with notice, none appears for the second respondent (defacto complainant). This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners/A2, A3 and A4 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2009 at the instance of the second respondent, pending on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. The first respondent/A1 in the D.V.C is the husband of the second respondent. The petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are the brothers of A.1 and A.4 is his father. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the marriage between A1 and the second respondent was performed on 21.04.1995 and they have been living separately due to some differences since long time. Earlier, on the same facts, the second respondent filed C.C.No.34 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. After full trial, the learned magistrate acquitted all the accused in the said case, by then the mother-in-law of the second respondent was alive and she was made as accused in the said case. Subsequently, the mother-in-law of the second respondent died on 13.10.2008 and it is submitted that with a view to harass the remaining accused, the D.V.C. is filed by the second respondent. The allegations mentioned in the D.V.C. indicate that the first petitioner discarded the second respondent and it is stated that he had already married a woman by name Ramya. Though some sweeping allegations have been made against the petitioners/A2 to A4 in the present criminal petition, they appear to be ex facie false and it is not mentioned in the complaint petition as to the nature of harassment caused by the petitioners and no specific incident has been mentioned in the domestic violence case. Considering all the aspects of the case and keeping in view the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.34 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada basing on the same facts, I am of the view that continuing the proceedings against the petitioners in D.V.C.No.1 of 2009 is nothing but abuse of process of law and it will cause undue hardship and inconvenience to the petitioners. For the foregoing, reasons, the entire proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2009 in so far as the petitioners/A2 to 4 are concerned, are hereby quashed and the criminal petition is allowed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 20.01.2011 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.5605 OF 2009 DATE: 20.01.2011