THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3114 OF 2010 ORDER: The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.23 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, against the petitioners herein. 2. The report by the second respondent herein to the Protection Officer, alleged that she was married to P.Ramulu, son of the petitioners on 09.02.2007, at which time cash of Rs.3,75,000/-, gold, household articles and other gifts were given as dowry and that since the second respondent joined her husband and parents-in-law at Delhi, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment leading to initiation of domestic violence case under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The report further alleged that the parents-in-law also joined the husband in such harassment and after transfer of the husband to Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, in July, 2007 also, she was claimed to have been subjected to the same degree of harassment and compelled to suffer an abortion. The second respondent claimed that she gave birth to a male child on 24.01.2008, but still the husband and parents-in-law tried to kill both of them to perform the second marriage for her husband to get a dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. In the domestic violence case taken on file by the Magistrate, reliefs were claimed for protection, residence, monetary relief and other reliefs against the husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law. 4. The parents-in-law of the second respondent, the present petitioners, claimed that they are residing at Ambedkar Colony, Lakkavaram Road, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District, while their son is an employee working in Central Reserve Police Force. They claimed that at no point of time, the second respondent resided together with the petitioners and immediately after the marriage, the son of the petitioners took his wife to Delhi where he was working. The petitioners claimed that the second respondent was not inclined even to visit their village and alleged that the second respondent herself beat them when they visited their son and grand son at Hyderabad occasionally. They further claimed that they were falsely implicated in Crime No.30 of 2009 of Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad, and the proceedings in the domestic violence case, are therefore, requested to be quashed. 5. Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing, produced the household card issued to the petitioners showing them to be residents of Huzurnagar in House No.35/99. The health card issued by Aarogya Sri Health Care Trust in their favour showing them to be residing in the same address has also been produced, apart from Savings Bank Account Books of both the petitioners issued by Andhra Bank mentioning them to be residing in the same address. These four documents were returned after perusal in open Court. 6. While Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/ the first respondent are heard, the second respondent did not enter appearance in person or through counsel during the hearing of the petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in D.V.C. 23 of 2009 against the petitioners are to be quashed. 8. Even according to the report of the second respondent to the Protection Officer, immediately after the marriage, she went to Delhi on 10.03.2007 to join her husband working in the Central Reserve Police Force at Delhi. Between her marriage on 09.02.2007 and the shift to Delhi on 10.03.2007, nothing was alleged to have happened and the reason or motive for the parents-in-law to harass the second respondent physically and mentally was not stated in the said report. The second respondent was claimed to have been threatened to be killed along with her son to enable the husband to marry again to get dowry, only after happening of all these events and the complaint did not specifically state about the parents-in-law also living in the same house at any point of time at Delhi or Hyderabad along with the second respondent. The petitioners specifically claimed that they never resided together with the second respondent and her husband and that they are permanent residents of Ambedkar Colony, Lakkavaram Road, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District, while their son is elsewhere. The documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing, bear testimony to the truth of the said claims and subjecting the petitioners, who are aged, to the mental and physical agony of having to defend themselves in the D.V.C. proceedings, does not appear to be justified, if they were never living in a domestic relationship together with the second respondent and her husband, excluding the possibility of their committing any acts of domestic violence against the second respondent during her marital life. A s ex facie there appears no scope for the petitioners to be involved in any culpable acts to make them liable for any reliefs in the domestic violence case, the further proceedings have to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the further proceedings in D.V.C.No.23 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, are quashed against the petitioners herein and the Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 23, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3114 OF 2010 Between: Peddoju Gopaiah @ Govardana Chary and another ...PETITIONERS AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3114 OF 2010 23.11.2011 YVL