IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10960 of 2009 Between: B.Sunil Kumar and another …Petitioners AND Smt.B.Rekha and another …Respondents The Court made the following: ' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10960 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel on record. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is ﬁled by the petitioners / respondents 2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.16 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad to call for the records relating to proceedings in D.V.C.No.16 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, and to quash the same. Learned counsel on record made elaborate submissions and also relied on certain reported decisions to substantiate his submissions. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder. Respondent No.1, the aggrieved person, ﬁled complaint before the Protection Oﬃcer under the Provisions of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Ranga Reddy District, seeking relieves pertaining to protection order, monetary relief as well as compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the in-laws of her i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law; and Accordingly, the Protection Oﬃcer, after preparing domestic incident report, ﬁled complaint before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, and the learned Magistrate took it on ﬁle as D.V.C.No.16 of 2009. It is also stated that the husband of the complainant died long back and as such, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners; the petitioners, who are age-old parents, are no way concerned with the aﬀairs of the complainant; even during the lifetime of the complainant’s husband Vinod Kumar, immediately after the marriage, they were separated with the joint family house in Ramanthapur and as such, they were residing at Boduppal i.e. in the parents’ house of the complainant. It is further stated that the first petitioner, who is the elder brother or the deceased Vinod Kumar, is working in Postal Department and living separately; he is not connected with the aﬀairs of the parents as well as his younger brother Vinod Kumar; since he is a Government servant, in order to extract money, present complaint is filed against him. It is further submitted that the second petitioner is an old aged lady suﬀering with old age ailments; the 2nd petitioner is already in deep shock since the death of her son; the prosecution order, in which the complainant is seeking the relief, cannot be granted because the said house is exclusive property of the 2nd petitioner, which is purchased with the Strhidhan provided by her parents and is also not liable for any monetary beneﬁts from the petitioners herein; moreover, the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be maintained against a woman who is mother-in-law. It is also stated that prior to ﬁling of this complaint, the complainant ﬁled a complaint under Section 498(A) IPC and the facts stated in the complaint under Section 498(A) IPC and the present complaint are quite contrary and shows that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case in order to extract the money from them. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied o n Abhinaya Shri Vs. Gandhi Smaraka Samithi and Anti Obscenity Forum and another[1], U.U.Thimmanna Vs. U.U.Sandhya [2] and Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahmed and others Vs. State of A.P. and another[3] to substantiate his submissions. The speciﬁc ground raised by the learned counsel for petitioners is that, since no relief had been claimed as against the petitioners / respondents 2 and 3 in D.V.C.No.16 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, the case as against them is not maintainable. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that this is not a ﬁt matter to be interfered with under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all these grounds, including the decisions placed before this Court speciﬁed supra, before the Court below. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J March 12, 2010 Bvv [1] 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 507 (A.P.) [2] 2009 (1) ALT (Cri) 285 : 2009 (TLS) 441123 [3] 2007 (2) ALT (Cri) 504 (A.P.)