IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7022 of 2008 Between: Vengali Ramulu and 6 others .. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor and 2 others .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri Damodar Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent is stated to be a not necessary party to this petition. Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in his usual fairness submitted that the reliefs sought for in respect of the 1st petitioner are not pressed and the Criminal Petition may fail in respect of the 1st petitioner. Insofar as the petitioners 2 to 7 are concerned, they seek quashing of further proceedings in DVC No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Chennur, claiming that petitioners 2 to 4 and 7 are residing separately at Somanpalli village of Chennur Mandal, while the 5th petitioner is a student at Hyderabad and the 6th petitioner is a resident of Srirampur village, Mancherial Mandal and they claimed to have nothing to do with what happened between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioners claimed the 2nd respondent to be only the maid servant of the 1st petitioner and to be having no marital status and to have filed the petition to gain monetarily from out of the retirement benefits, which the 1st petitioner received on his voluntary retirement under a Golden Handshake scheme. In the DVC, the 2nd respondent made specific allegations about the marriage with the 1st petitioner herein leading to happy marital life for one year and thereafter being subjected to beating, harassment and cruelty by the 1st petitioner, who also demanded additional dowry. She specifically alleged that there was a panchayat before caste elders and the 1st petitioner was even attempting to remove her name as the nominee for receiving the service benefits of the 1st petitioner. It was clearly alleged by the 2nd respondent herein that she is entitled to a Protection Order prohibiting the respondents from committing any domestic violence and for further reliefs relating to the service record and service benefits of the 1st petitioner including the monetary reliefs and compensation and damages. Except the Protection Order sought for, the petitioners 2 to 7 cannot be considered to be in any manner connected with the other reliefs sought for by the 2nd respondent. It is seen from the domestic violence case that the allegations were clear and specific only against the 1st petitioner and the allegation against all the petitioners was included in ink in the typed petition stating that the respondents 1 to 7 to the DVC case are harassing the petitioner/the 2nd respondent herein. The obvious interpolation of the allegations made in the DVC to involve petitioners 2 to 7 in the disputes between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent appears to be an afterthought without any basis and on the face of it, in the absence of any allegations against the petitioners 2 to 7 and in the absence of any reliefs sought for against them specifically, the continuance of DVC against them will be a travesty of justice. While quashing the proceedings against petitioners 2 to 7, it should be, however, made it clear that there shall not be any expression of opinion on the alleged marital status or otherwise of the 2nd respondent or the nature of relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent, which questions in controversy will be determined by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law in the DVC after due enquiry. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner and is allowed in respect of the petitioners 2 to 7 and the further proceedings in DVC No.8 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chennur, are quashed against petitioners 2 to 7. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28-09-2011 Ksn