IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3972 OF 2009 Between: Mitta Veeranagi Reddy & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V R Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for the Respondents : Addl. Public Prosecutor Sri M. Manohar Reddy for R2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3972 OF 2009 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition is filed to quash DVC.No. 12 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoti, Kadapa district. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. The brief facts required for considering the criminal petition may be stated as follows: According to the second respondent, the first petitioner married her on 15-11-1987 while both of them were residing in Persian gulf country. It is the version of the second respondent that a daughter and a son were born to her through the first petitioner in Bahrain country. She further alleged in the complaint that the petitioners 2 to 9 were close relatives of the first petitioner and they have been trying to separate her from the first petitioner and they also tried to kill her and perform the second marriage to the first petitioner. She further alleged in the complaint that the petitioners created false document to grab her property. She also alleged in the complaint that in the maintenance case filed by her the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoti granted maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to her and her children and directed the first petitioner to pay the same and that the first petitioner failed to comply the orders passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoti. With the above said allegations, she submitted her complaint to the Protection Officer. 4. Subsequently, the Domestic Violence Case came to be filed against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoti, Kadapa district. 5. There are certain admitted facts in the present case. The second respondent was originally married to one Subbarayudu and she admitted that her marriage with Subbarayudu was performed in 1987 but she contends that the said marriage was void because on the date of marriage she was aged about 16 years. Therefore, the fact remains that she married the first petitioner in 1987 while her marriage with Subbarayudu was subsisting. She obtained a decree of divorce in OP.No. 18 of 1996 against Subbarayudu only in the year 1996 i.e., much later to the alleged marriage with the first petitioner, which according to her in the year 1987. Further the material does not show that she lived in domestic relationship with the respondents 2 to 9 at any time. She also did not seek any specific relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 from the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners 2 to 9 are not living with the first petitioner. 6. The Criminal Petition against the first petitioner was dismissed by this Court, as it was withdrawn by the counsel. In any event, when the petitioners 2 to 9 are not living with the first petitioner the question of these petitioners causing any domestic violence against the second respondent does not arise. From the facts of the case, which are referred to hereinabove, it is quite obvious that the domestic violence case was filed by the second respondent only to harass the close relations of the first petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that there are some civil disputes between the first petitioner and the second petitioner and also the sixth petitioner and therefore, the entire case cannot be viewed as false. Pendency of the civil dispute does not in any way enable the second respondent to file domestic violence case against the petitioners 2 to 9 since they have not been in domestic relationship with the second respondent at any point of time. The domestic violence case filed at the instance of the second respondent is nothing but abuse of process of court and seems to have been designed to harass the petitioners 2 to 9, who are the close relatives of the first petitioner. In view of the above, the DVC.No. 12 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoti, Kadapa district is quashed in so far as the petitioners 2 to 9 are concerned. 8. The Criminal Petition is allowed, as regards the petitioners 2 to 9. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 13-10-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3972 OF 2009 CIRCULATION NO. 76 DATE 13-10-2010 COURT MASTER: I s L COMPUTER NO. 43