IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5991 of 2010 Between: Chilukuri Dhanalakshmi & 3 others …. Petitioners And: Chilukuri Sravani & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5991 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners in DVC No.12 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioners (R.2 to R.5 in DVC) and her husband (R.1 in DVC) seeking various reliefs, including protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, return of the gold jewels pledged with State Bank of India and grant of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month under Section 20 of the Act. The first petitioner is the mother and 2nd petitioner is the sister of the complainant’s husband. Admittedly, the petitioners 3 and 4 are not related either to the husband of the complainant or to the complainant. 4. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that the thrust of the allegations pertaining to the alleged demand for additional dowry is only directed against the husband (R.1 in DVC) and the mother-in- law (first petitioner herein), who are alleged to have necked the complainant out of the house. 5. Section 2(q) of the Act defines ‘respondent’ as meaning any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved persons has sought any relief under this Act. The proviso to Section 2(q) says an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. 6. Admittedly, petitioners 3 and 4 do not answer the description of the ‘respondent’ as defined under the provisions of the Act and the complainant cannot seek any relief against them. Even other wise, the allegations made against 3rd petitioner is that he gave some tablets, which the complainant swallowed and subsequently, she came to know that the said tablets were meant for abortion. It is not the allegation of the complainant that as a result of consuming the said tablets, the complainant suffered any abortion. The allegations made against 4th petitioner is that he pledged gold ornaments with State Bank of India, Ananthapalli for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- through his agricultural account. Even as per the averments of the complaint, the complainant and her husband approached 4th petitioner seeking his assistance and help for pledging the gold ornaments. Thus, even as per the averments of the complaint, 4th petitioner lent his account number for the complainant, to enable the complainant and her husband to pledge the gold ornaments. It is not the allegation of the complainant that the amount borrowed from the bank on pledge of gold ornaments was taken away by 4th petitioner. Admittedly, the complainant and her husband utilized the said amount for their personal use. Thus, there is absolutely no cause of action to implead the petitioners 3 and 4 and so the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted against them. 7. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the only allegation made against her is that she advised the husband of the complainant to harass the complainant for additional dowry. The 2nd petitioner is the married sister of the husband of the complainant and is living elsewhere in her matrimonial home. The reliefs prayed for by the complainant cannot also be granted as against the 2nd petitioner based on the vague allegation made against her in the complaint. 8. The case of the first petitioner however stands on different footing as specific allegations are made against the first petitioner that she used to harass the complainant for additional dowry along with the complainant’s husband and first petitioner-mother-in-law also necked the complainant out of the house. Under those circumstances, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioners 2 to 4 (respondents 3 to 5 in DVC) are not sustainable and it is a fit case to invoke inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against them in DVC No.12 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, and they are accordingly quashed. The proceedings against the first petitioner (2nd respondent in DVC) and the husband of the complainant, however, shall go on. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed in part insofar as the petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned and the criminal petition is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.12.2010 bss