THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6359 OF 2008 Date: 08.12.2011 Between: Bylapudi Appala Satyam and others …..Petitioners And Bylapudi Sridevamma and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6359 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 9 in C.C.No.237 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram (trial court). They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the said case. 3. The above case has been filed by the first respondent herein i.e. B.Sridevamma claiming certain reliefs against these petitioners and another by name S.Naresh under the provisions of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act). It appears that at that time the cases filed under the Act were registered as C.Cs. and the respondents therein were shown as accused but that is only a description of the parties and is insignificant. Various allegations are made in the said case. The first petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 herein are parents and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 herein are brothers and seventh petitioner herein is stated to be the sister of first petitioner. The second petitioner herein is stated to be the lady living allegedly in adultery with first petitioner and petitioner Nos.8 and 9 herein are said to be her parents. 4. The main plea of the petitioners is that all the allegations in the above case are false and that the first respondent unnecessarily dragged them to the court for harassing them. Sri K.Somakonda Reddy pointed out that the first petitioner already obtained divorce against the second petitioner by filing HMOP.No.67 of 2002 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. However it is brought to my notice that the first respondent filed an appeal against it i.e. C.M.A.No.804 of 2006 which is pending in this Court. Hence the grant of divorce decree in the above HMOP cannot be a ground for the first petitioner to claim the quashing of the proceedings. 5. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, he is admittedly the husband of the first respondent. Various allegations made in the above case would show a cause of action for the first respondent against her husband and he may be liable for providing maintenance and other monetary reliefs to the first respondent, if the said allegations against him are found to be true. Hence, so far as the first petitioner is concerned, this petition is dismissed. 6. So far as petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are concerned, it may be noted that petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are related to the first petitioner and petitioner Nos.8 and 9 are related to second petitioner. It is seen that only general allegations are made against them and further it is also not made clear as to how they would be liable to pay maintenance or other monetary relief to the first respondent. It is true that in the above case certain allegations of intimidation are made against petitioner Nos.2 to 9 and illicit intimacy is also alleged between petitioner Nos.1 and 2 but it is not made clear as to how petitioner Nos.2 to 9 can be made answerable to first respondent on that ground. A perusal of all the allegations would show that they are very general in nature and it is also not made clear as to how the first respondent can claim any relief against petitioner Nos.2 to 9 under the Act regarding monetary relief, maintenance and properties. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings in the above case against petitioners 2 to 9 cannot be allowed to be continued. Hence this petition so far as first petitioner is concerned is dismissed but so far as petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are concerned it is allowed and the proceedings against them in the above case are quashed. 7. It is however made clear that it shall be always open for first respondent in the course of inquiry to show the complicity of the other petitioners also and as and when evidence is forthcoming against them it shall be open for the trial court to proceed against them also having regard to its power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. or under any other provision of law. 8. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 8th December, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6359 OF 2008 DATE: 08.12.2011