HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No. 7458 of 2007 Date: 19-08-2010 Between: T. Munikrishna Reddy and others …….. Petitioners and Smt. M. Shilpa and others ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No. 7458 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners, who are A-2 to A-8, approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings against them in Case No.18 of 2007 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabaad, Kukatpalli at Miyapur. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the first respondent was solemnized with A-1 on 31-05-2002 and thereafter they went to USA on 22-11-2003 and returned to India on 08-12-2005 and again they went back to USA on 08-02-2006. It is alleged that after going to USA, A-1, with an intention to get rid of her, forcibly sent her to India along with her three year old son on 15-11-2006 and as he was not responding for her phone call, she lodged a complaint on 10-12-2006 at Chinnachowk Police Station, Kadapali, which was registered as Crime No.272 of 2006 against A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 498-A and 313 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further alleged that though the charge sheet was filed on 12-03-2007, no action was taken against A-1. It is also alleged that her in laws filed a false case, which was registered as Crime No.18 of 2007 at S.V.U. Police Station, Tirupati. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a relief under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) cannot be granted and that the first respondent is now living with her parents and she has no right to reside in the house belonging to the first petitioner which was his self acquired property. He further submitted that on the mere fact that the husband and wife lived together for sometime in the house of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the first respondent is not entitled to a share in the residential house of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent cannot claim for alternative accommodation from the petitioners and such a claim can be made only against the husband and not against the husband’s parents and other relatives. It is further submitted that the protection order under Section 18 of the Act can be issued only where the first respondent is living at the some place and the other petitioners are residing at another place far away from the place of residence of the first respondent. Similarly orders under Sections 20 to 22 of the Act can be granted only against the husband and the first respondent cannot claim any compensation or interim order against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the complaint lodged against the petitioners is not maintainable under law and it has been filed only with a view to harass the petitioners, who are the relatives of the first respondent’s husband, and continuation of those proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The first respondent has already filed a criminal case against petitioners 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 498-A of IPC etc. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 6. Even after service of notice, the first respondent’s counsel is absent. 7. After perusing the entire record and allegations made therein, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners in the present case are liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in Case No.18 of 2007 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpalli at Miyapur, are hereby quashed. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J Date: 19-08-2010 YCR