IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5286 of 2008 Between: K. Kasamastan Rao & another .. Petitioners AND The State of A.P. & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5286 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Smt. P. Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against the proceedings in D.V.C. No.6 of 2008, on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur. 3. On a complaint by the second respondent herein to the Protection Officer on 25.04.2008, the proceedings commenced. The complaint alleged the second respondent/husband Sanjeev Kumar to be indulging in all sorts of domestic violence, the details of which are not germane in this petition as the husband is not a party herein. Insofar as petitioners 1 and 2, the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the second respondent, are concerned, an allegation was made by the second respondent that the first petitioner caught hold of her, beat her and slapped her when she was four months pregnant. The only allegation against the second petitioner is about the husband, parents-in-law and the brother-in-law/the second petitioner saying that they will kill the second respondent herein. While the allegation against the first petitioner was specific about an incident when the second respondent was four months pregnant, the general allegation of a threat to kill by the husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law was not specified to be on any particular day or at any particular time or during a particular incident. 4. The petitioners herein seek quashing of further proceedings against them on the ground that the second respondent never stayed at her parents-in-law’s house for more than two months during her marital life and that the first petitioner, the father-in-law, being old, never interfered with the matrimonial life of the second respondent. The second petitioner was claimed to be working in Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalion at Warangal on deputation. 5. On such allegations, when the second respondent specifically alleged that she was living in the matrimonial home with her husband and in-laws and that number of incidents had happened between them amounting to domestic violence, any fact finding enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the father-in-law cannot be within the scope of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, however, there was absolutely no specific allegation of any specific overt act or omission by him at any point of time during the matrimonial life of the second respondent at her in-laws house and the final addition of a general threat by all the members of the husband’s family including the second petitioner does not appear to be such as to inspire confidence in a judicial mind about the probability of such a threat from the second petitioner. The second petitioner is stated to be working in a Law Enforcement Department in Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalion and if he is working at Warangal on deputation (the period, of course, not being specified), it might not have been physically possible for the second petitioner to indulge in any such threats. Apart from the question whether the alleged general threat would have amounted to an act of domestic violence within the meaning of the statute, the vague and indefinite allegation made against the second petitioner may not be suffice to maintain a domestic violence case against him. 6. Under the circumstances, while the second petitioner would succeed, the first petitioner should fail. 7. Accordingly, further proceedings in D.V.C. No.6 of 2008, on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur, are quashed against the second petitioner, while the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5286 of 2008 Date: 28th September, 2011 KL