IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.2844 of 2009 Between: G. Satish Kumar and 2 others .. Petitioners AND State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri B. Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent. Though the 2nd respondent has been served with the notice of the Criminal Petition long back, none entered appearance on her behalf. DVC.No.7 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, has been initiated by the 2nd respondent herein with her complaint to the Protection Officer dated 23-10-2008 and the petitioners herein have been made as respondents 2 to 4 in the DVC on the report of the Protection Officer, due to which the petitioners seek quashing of proceedings against them. The complaint by the 2nd respondent herein to the Protection Officer dated 23-10-2008 made specific allegations about the conduct of her husband throughout their matrimonial life and only made a passing reference about the husband having two sons and one daughter through his first wife, who are the present petitioners. The 2nd respondent claimed to have brought up the present petitioners with all love and affection and only a general allegation was made by the 2nd respondent herein about the husband, mother-in-law, sons and daughters joining together to treat the 2nd respondent as less than a domestic servant. Such vague, indefinite and unspecified allegations against the petitioners cannot be considered to have disclosed any specific acts of omission or commission constituting acts of domestic violence by the petitioners against the 2nd respondent herein. The Protection Officer’s report, while showing the petitioners as respondents 2 to 4 in the Domestic Violence Case, also made a general allegation about the petitioners and the 2nd respondent’s husband harassing the 2nd respondent with their words. The specific allegation about physical and mental harassment was only against the husband. The petitioners are young in age and the 1st and 2nd petitioners are in fact working as teachers, while the 3rd petitioner is still a minor said to be studying Intermediate. The facts and circumstances disclosed by the material papers thus do not present the possibility of the petitioners being liable to any relief in favour of the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and the petitioners specifically denied having anything to do with the matrimonial life of the 2nd respondent. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the petitioners disputing even the matrimonial relationship between the 2nd respondent and their father, any further continuance of the proceedings appears to be not called for and they have to be quashed against the petitioners in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the further proceedings in DVC.No.7 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool against the petitioners are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-10-2011 Ksn