IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2827 OF 2009 Between: B. Krishna Murthy and others .....PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2827 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 to 5 in D.V.C.No.38 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - cum - First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. Petitioners herein are respondent Nos.2 to 5 and respondent No.2 herein is the complainant in the Domestic Violence Case. 3. The allegations in the petition filed by respondent No.2 would go to show that at the time of her marriage with her husband (respondent No.1 in Domestic Violence Case), cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, 40 tulas of gold, Rs.50,000/- towards clothes, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to her sister- in-law, Rs.65,000/- to her mother-in-law and Rs.1,15,000/- towards house hold articles, were given to the respondents in the Domestic Violence Case and thereafter, she was sent to the matrimonial house at Gadwal. It is alleged that she along with her husband, shifted their family to Hyderabad as her husband was working as a Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation. It is further alleged that the family members of her husband used to harass her stating that she should get additional dowry and also suspected her character, and that she was harassed, both mentally and physically. It is further alleged that her husband also harassed her sexually and further made several allegations against her, and she tolerated all the harassment with a fond hope that there would be a change in the attitude of her husband, but, there was no change in his attitude and ultimately she has given a report before the Mahila Police Station, Kurnool against her husband and other family members for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), basing on which police registered a case in Crime No. 11 of 2008. Thereafter, the present Domestic Violence Case is filed before the Protection Officer and the same is placed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, for proceeding further under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there are no allegations made out against the petitioners herein; that respondent No.2 is not seeking any relief against the petitioners herein; that there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioners herein with regard to the domestic violence, and so, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners herein is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 herein contended that the allegations in the application would go to show that the petitioners herein were harassing respondent No.2 herein; that respondent No.2 herein is seeking protection from the petitioners herein with regard to their alleged domestic violence and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein are parents-in-law of respondent No.2, petitioner No.3 is sister of husband of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.4 is husband of petitioner No.3. 7. As seen from the allegations in the complaint, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 herein are wife and husband residing in Kurnool, whereas respondent No.2 herein used to reside with her husband at Hyderabad. Except omnibus allegation that on one occasion, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 came to the house of respondent No.2 and started harassing her, no other allegation is levelled against them. Similarly, no relief is claimed against petitioner Nos.3 and 4. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein are no doubt residing at Gadwal, but, at the same time, respondent No.2 is seeking protection from petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein as they were harassing her. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Domestic Violence Case, whereas no prima facie case is made out against petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who are respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Domestic Violence Case. Hence, the proceedings in the application are quashed in respect of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 only. Insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 20, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2827 OF 2009 August 20, 2010