THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.1373/2004 Dt,8-7-2010 1. Burri Vijayamma and others ..Petitioner V. 1. Munnangi Prameela and another ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.1373/2004 ORAL ORDER The petitioners who are arrayed as accused in CC No.473/2003 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against them contending that the first respondent taking advantage of the compassionate appointment in the Excise Department on the death of her husband neglected her son and the petitioners and when they questioned about non-looking after her son, the first respondent resorted to file a complaint against the petitioner. This court by order dt. 1-3-2006 directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to ascertain the correct address of the first respondent and take out notice by registered post with acknowledgment due, and file proof of service within a period of four weeks. In spite of the same, the learned counsel has not taken any steps to take out notice to the first respondent. Thereafter, the matter underwent four adjournments from 13-7-2006 to 10-11-2006. Again on 10-11-2006, this court ordered fresh notice to the respondent No.1, and permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve notice on the learned counsel for the first respondent in the lower court. In spite of specific direction to serve notice on the learned counsel for the first respondent in the lower court, the learned counsel has not taken any steps to serve notice nor furnished correct address of the first respondent. Further, the notice sent to the first respondent through V Additional Judicial Magistrate o First Class, Guntur returned unserved stating that she is not residing in the address given by the petitioners. In view of non-service of notice on the first respondent, initiated proceedings against the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be quashed. But at the same time, the proceedings cannot be pending for years together for the fault of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, it is presumed that the petitioners have no interest to prosecute their case. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.8-7-2010 kmr c