IN THE HIGH COURT OF LJUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD (3RD) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.4988 of 2010 Between: Bayana Yella Reddy & 3 others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.4988 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings against the petitioners, who are respondents 2 to 5 in DVC No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel, Kadapa district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. On the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein and also on the report of the Protection Officer, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in DVC No.1 of 2009 against the husband of the 2nd respondent and also the petitioners herein. The first petitioner is the brother-in-law, 2nd petitioner is the sister, 3rd petitioner is the mother and 4th petitioner is the brother of the husband of the 2nd respondent-complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no allegations are made against the petitioners and no acts are attributed against any one of the petitioners herein. As can be seen from the complaint, the 2nd respondent herein is seeking various reliefs under the provisions of the D.V.C. Act, including protection order and also order for shared accommodation in the family house. 4. The 3rd petitioner being the mother and 4th petitioner being brother of the first respondent in DVC i.e., husband of the complainant, are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2009. Hence, further proceedings against the petitioners 3 and 4 in DVC No.1 of 2009 are not liable to be quashed. 5. Further insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, they are living elsewhere and no relief is sought against them and no allegation is also made against them in the complaint. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant would submit that in the sworn statement of 2nd respondent, it is stated that the 2nd petitioner herein has taken away her gold ornaments and did not return them, but no such allegation is made in the complaint and no relief is also sought in the D.V.C. case regarding return of the said jewels. Under those circumstances, merely because, the 2nd respondent alleged in the sworn statement that the 2nd petitioner herein has taken away the jewels, which allegation is in the nature of improvement, the same not having been referred to in the complaint, further proceedings against the 2nd petitioner herein in DVC No.1 of 2009 are not liable to be proceeded with. 6. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, there are absolutely no allegation is made against him or any acts are attributed to him in the complaint. On the other hand, in the complaint it is stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 have admonished the husband of the complainant for the ill-treatment of the 2nd respondent-complainant. Under those circumstances, it is held that the said proceedings against the petitioners 1 and 2 are not sustainable and they are accordingly quashed by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2009 against the husband of the complainant and also the petitioners 3 and 4 herein, shall continue. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent stated above. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 03.11.2010 bss