The Criminal Petition is directed against the further proceedings in DVC. No. l of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur, Kurnool District against the petitioners.

2. The 2nd respondent gave a report to the Protection Officer alleging that she was married to Muzibur Rahaman eight years earlier at Velpanur village and as per the desire of her husband, her parents paid cash of Rs. 50,000/-, 15 tulas of gold and household articles worth Rs. 25,000/-. She claimed to be residing at Velpanur with her husband and parents-in-law till recently, giving birth to a son and a daughter during the course of wedlock. She claimed to be subjected to harassment, for getting lesser dowry and not being beautiful, by the husband, parents-in-law and brothers of the husband. Her father Mahaboob Basha was claimed to have got a panchayat conducted by the village elders Potham Ramakrishna Reddy, Musani Maheswara Reddy and others, but in vain. On the day of Ramzan, all the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case were claimed to have necked her out from the house and since then she claimed to be residing other parent's house along with her children. She, therefore, desired that she be protected from all the respondents to the Domestic Violence Case and her marital home be restored. She claimed that maintenance may be provided to her and her children from her husband as he has his own business, Ac. l0.00 of land and three houses. She sought for allotment of one house to her and her children.

3. The Domestic Violence report filed by the Protection Officer on the said complaint was taken cognizance by the Magistrate against the husband, parents-in-law and the petitioners herein who are brothers of the husband.

4. The petitioners claimed that the 1st petitioner is a soldier, while the 4th petitioner is a BSF Jawan, both of them dedicating their lives in the service of the mother land staying far away from home. The 3rd and 5th petitioners are claimed to be students doing their M.B.A. and B.E. courses respectively, while the 2nd petitioner is claimed to be a mason. The petitioners claimed that they have no concern with the family affairs of the 2nd respondent and her husband and never involved themselves in the marital life of the 2nd respondent. They denied any allegations made against them in the Domestic Violence Case and claimed to have been falsely implicated. They, therefore, desired that the further proceedings against them be quashed.

5. Sri D. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Vengala Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent are heard.

6. Sri D. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel, produced during the course of hearing, the copies of identity card of the 1st petitioner, address proof of the 1st petitioner and identity card of the 4th petitioner to show that the petitioners 1 and 4, who are serving in Army and BSF, are far away from home since long.

7. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in the Domestic Violence Case have to be discontinued against the petitioners herein?

8. The complaint by the 2nd respondent to the Protection Officer clearly alleged that since the marriage, the 2nd respondent was residing at Velpanur along with her husband and parents-in-law till recently and had two children out of their wedlock aged 7 and 4 years respectively. The complaint did not specify that the petitioners 1 to 5 were also residing together with the husband and parents-in-law of the 2nd respondent. It is of course stated generally that since the marriage, the petitioners also were together with the husband and the parents-in-law in harassing her accusing to have brought lesser dowry and to be not beautiful, but no specific instances of such harassment against any of the petitioners were narrated in the complaint. The Panchayat said to have been held by the village elders Potha