IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.11819 of 2010 Between: Dr. K. Srinivas & another .. Petitioners AND V. Esha & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.11819 of 2010 ORDER: The criminal petition is directed against the proceedings in D.V.C.No.225 of 2010, on the ﬁle of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, at Hyderabad, against the petitioners impleaded therein as respondents 4 and 5. 2. On the complaint of the ﬁrst respondent herein to the Protection Oﬃcer, dated 14.09.2010, the Protection Oﬃcer ﬁled the domestic violence report which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and the contents of the complaint from the ﬁrst respondent to the Protection Oﬃcer in so far as the present petitioners are concerned, with reference to the marital life of the ﬁrst respondent with K. Purnachandar since the marriage on 15.06.2006 are about the parents of the ﬁrst respondent believing the ﬁrst petitioner in being persuaded for agreeing to the settlement of the marriage between the ﬁrst respondent and K. Purnachandar due to the eﬀorts of mutual friends of the ﬁrst petitioner and the brother of the ﬁrst respondent Dr. V. Brahma Prasad. The further allegation against the petitioners is about the criminal conspiracy schemed by the husband of the ﬁrst respondent due to constant telephonic instructions from the parents-in-law and the petitioners herein. While reliefs for a protection order, a residence order, return of stridhan, monetary relief, compensation and permanent alimony were sought for in the domestic violence case, it is not intelligible from the complaint of the ﬁrst respondent to the Protection Oﬃcer or the domestic violence report of the Protection Oﬃcer as to how on the allegations made against the petitioners, they could have been susceptible to the reliefs sought for. 3. The petitioners ﬁled the present petition claiming that they have nothing to do with the family of the ﬁrst respondent as both of them are living separately being married. The ﬁrst petitioner, working as a doctor in the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, claimed to be staying away from his parents and brother, while the second petitioner, after marriage, was stated to be staying at Devanpalli of Kamareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is diﬀerent even from the village of the parents of the husband. The petitioners claimed that in Crime No.465 of 2010, in respect of the alleged oﬀences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at the instance of the mother of the ﬁrst respondent, no allegations were made against them and even the complaint from the ﬁrst respondent to the Protection Oﬃcer did not assign any speciﬁc role to the petitioners. Hence, they desired the further proceedings against them to be quashed. 4. Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent. 5. The point for consideration is whether the continuance of the domestic violence case against the petitioners is, in any manner, justified. 6. The report given by the mother of the ﬁrst respondent on 22.08.2010 leading to the registration of Crime No.465 of 2010 by the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, C.C.S., Hyderabad, showed that the allegations concerning the marital discord are conﬁned solely to the husband and absolutely, no allegation was made against any other member of the family or for that matter, the petitioners. The domestic violence report, ﬁled by the Protection Oﬃcer before the Magistrate, speciﬁcally described the petitioners to be residing separately at Hyderabad and at Devanpalli respectively and as already stated, the acquaintance of the ﬁrst petitioner with the brother of the ﬁrst respondent leading to the settlement of the alliance could not have been construed, in any manner, to be an act of domestic violence. The alleged constant telephonic instructions from either petitioner to scheme a conspiracy with K. Purnachandar, the husband of the ﬁrst respondent, were not corroborated by any details and in the ordinary and natural course of human events, it is diﬃcult to believe that either petitioner would have indulged in such villainy for no reason. The domestic violence report from the Protection Oﬃcer also is devoid of any veriﬁable details and in any view, none of the reliefs claimed in the domestic violence appear to be available in law against either petitioner. The further proceedings against the petitioners have to be, therefore, necessarily quashed. 7. Therefore, the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.225 of 2010, on the ﬁle of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are quashed against both the petitioners and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30th November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.11819 of 2010 Date: 30th November, 2011 KL