IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7169 of 2008 Between: K.V.S. Prasad & 2 others .. Petitioners AND The State of A.P. & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7169 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed requesting for quashing of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, against the petitioners invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. While the first petitioner is the husband, petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the second respondent herein who complained to the Protection Officer that her husband was not taking her and was not even showing the children to her and her husband may be made to take her to live together. The second respondent stated that a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- was given at the time of her marriage and she desires to live with the first petitioner herein. She further complained about she being not allowed even to speak with the children and that she has absolutely no support for living. As the troubles are being undergone since 14 years, she requested the Protection Officer to unite her with her husband and children. 3. It was on such complaint that notices were given by the Protection Officer to the petitioners about subjecting the second respondent to domestic violence and a copy of Form-II or other material papers enclosed to this criminal petition do not show any specific allegations against petitioners 2 and 3, the parents-in-law of the second respondent. 4. The petitioners alleged that the complaint of the second respondent herein to the Protection Officer resulted in notices to them, while there was also a complaint to the Mandal Revenue Officer who referred the matter to the Family Counseling Center. The petitioners also referred to O.P.No.26 of 2007, filed by the second respondent for restitution of conjugal rights, and a complaint filed by the second respondent before the District Legal Services Authority, West Godavari. The case in D.V.C.No.9 of 2008 was claimed to be the result of all these complaints and the petitioners claimed that they are not liable to be proceeded against under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”). 5. Sri S.V.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/first respondent are heard. 6. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, he is the husband of the second respondent and the specific allegations of the second respondent in the report given by her to the Protection Officer were against the conduct of the first petitioner in relation to their matrimonial life since 14 years in spite of receiving Rs.3/5 lakhs as dowry apart from household articles and in spite of the desire of the second respondent to live with her husband and children. The husband was claimed to be not caring even for the words of elders and these are matters to be enquired into on fact by the trial Court before concluding whether any cause of action has been made out for further action against the husband under the special statute. The first petitioner cannot, therefore, seek the advantage of any inherent powers of this Court in quashing the further proceedings. 7. Insofar as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, except that, admittedly, they are the parents-in-law of the second respondent, there appeared no specific allegation made against them which makes them susceptible to any relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act. Except that they are the parents of the husband, no specific acts of commission and omission appear to have been attributed to them to subject them to any further proceedings in the domestic violence case. As ex facie no case is made out against them, the further proceedings against them have to end. 8. Therefore, the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, are quashed against petitioners 2 and 3 and the Criminal Petition is allowed, accordingly, in respect of petitioners 2 and 3 and is dismissed in respect of petitioner No.1. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7169 of 2008 Date: 12th October, 2011 KL