IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 8248 of 2009 Between: 1 E.Srikanth Goud S/o. E.Subbarayudu R/o. H.No. 8-2-293/82/L/94-C, MLA Colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 E.Subba Rayudu S/o. Late E.Naganna Goud R/o. Flat No. 503, Dheeraj Enclave, Saptagiri Colony, Kurnool. 3 Smt. E.Rukminamma W/o. E.Subbarayudu R/o. Flat No. 503, Dheeraj Enclave, Saptagiri Colony, Kurnool. 4 E.Ravi Shanker Goud S/o. E.Subbarayudu R/o. Flat No. 103, Sai Vasista Apartments, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 5 E.Ashwini Kumar S/o. E.Subbarayudu R/o. H.No. 8-2-293/82/L/94-C, MLA Colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. E.Rajini D/o. G.Bikshapathi R/o. H.No. 7-1-235/21, Prashant Colony, Balkampet, Hyderabad. 3 E.Harini D/o. E.Srikanth Goud (under the guardianship of her mother E.Rajini i.e, respondent No. 2, both are R/o. H.No. 16-9-749/1, Race Course Road, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto call for the records relating to DVC.No. 17 of 2009 on the file of the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, and quash the proceedings thereon. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.NAGESWAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY Crl.P.No. 8248 of 2009 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. In view of the nature of relief claimed in the D.V.C., case, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. As far as Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, they are remotely connected with the affairs and there is no substantial material against them. As such, the proceedings pending against petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 in D.V.C.No. 17 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hydeabad, are hereby quashed. 4. The petition in so far as it relates to Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. 5. Thus the petition is accordingly disposed in the above terms. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. November 20, 2009. *BVS