THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11650 OF 2010 ORDER: The Criminal Petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapet, against the petitioner herein impleaded as the first respondent therein. 2. The second respondent herein gave a complaint to the Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada alleging that on her husband being admitted in hospital due to ill-health, she returned to the Village for getting money, at which time members of her husband’s family took away by force the bank bonds, documents of title of the house, ration card, Arogya Sri Card and other valuables. She also claimed to have been driven out from the hospital by the members of the husband’s family later and to have not been allowed even to go near her husband’s dead body which had been brought to Ryali on 02.06.2010. The petitioner herein was alleged to be among the four persons who prevented her from going near the dead body of her husband. She therefore, sought for return of her articles which were taken away by force. 3. The Protection Officer filed a domestic violence report before the Magistrate, which was taken cognizance against all the four persons including the petitioner herein and in Form No. 1 filed by the Protection Officer there was no specific reference to any involvement of the petitioner herein, except in Column No.2 of Form No. 1 specifying the persons responsible. The relief sought for was only for return of the articles, allegedly taken away by force from the second respondent. 4. The petitioner herein claims that no allegations were made against him and in Crime No.127 of 2010 on the file of the Gandepalli Police Station also, concerning the same offence, there was no reference to the petitioner. As no act of domestic violence was ever committed by the petitioner even according to the allegations of the second respondent, he claimed the domestic violence case to be not sustainable against him. 5. Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.S.S.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri Rudersh Deshpande, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor/ the first respondent are heard. 6. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings against the petitioner have to be ordered to be terminated. 7. The copy of the report given by the second respondent herein to the police leading to registration of Crime No.127 of 2010, on the file of Gandepalli Police Station, shows that the specific allegation was about the involvement of respondents 2 to 4 in the Domestic Violence Case, Mare Amen and Adukuri Venkata Rao, husband of another sister of her husband, in the incident leading to the loss of bank bonds, other valuable documents, the documents of title of the house, gold articles of her husband, ration card, voter registration card and Arogya Sri card. There was absolutely no reference to the involvement of the petitioner herein in the said incident. In the domestic violence case also, an allegation was made about such an incident, but without specifying as to who the members of the family of her husband who were involved in the incident. The allegation made against the petitioner herein in the complaint made to the Collector by the second respondent is only about his being one of those who prevented her from approaching her husband’s dead body, which was brought to Ryali on 02.06.2010. However, the relief sought for in the domestic violence case is only concerning the return of documents and articles which were forcibly taken away allegedly by the members of her husband’s family and when the petitioner was not alleged to be part of the said incident, no relief could have been granted, even if he was part of the prevention of the second respondent from approaching the dead body of her husband. As such, no relief could have been granted against him in the domestic violence case, even if the allegations in the complaint of the second respondent to the District Collector are true and no useful purpose would be served in continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner herein. Without expressing any opinion on the right of the second respondent to any relief against the petitioner in respect of the alleged incident in any other legal proceeding, the further proceedings in the domestic violence case have to be terminated against him. 8. Therefore, the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapet, against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 30, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11650 OF 2010 Between: Gudapati Stalin ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11650 OF 2010 30.11.2011 YVL