1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in DVC No.149 of 2010 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. The facts enumerated for filing of the present petition, succinctly, are as follows:

3. The first respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act) on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioner claiming reliefs under Sections 14, 16 to 20 and 22 of the Act. The trial Court, after taking the case on file, issued summons to the petitioner.

4. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner and first respondent lived together in house bearing D.No.21-4-82 14th Industrial Area, Gowthami Nagar, Ramagundam for two or three years. The first respondent used to stay in the house of the petitioner as and when his wife went to her parents house for a period of two or three months. The gist of the complaint is that first respondent is an aggrieved person; therefore, she is entitled to claim reliefs under sections 18 to 22 of the Act from the petitioner.

5. There is no representation on behalf of the first respondent. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-claiming of notice by the first respondent would amount to service of notice.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that on 12.11.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice to the first respondent and file proof of service. In pursuance of the said direction, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken out personal notice to the address of the first respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due, but the same was returned with an endorsement not claimed. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo along with return postal cover in the registry to that effect. For better understanding, the address furnished by the first respondent in her complaint and the address to which the petitioner sent notice are furnished in the following table:

Address mentioned by the first respondent in her complaint Address to which the petitioner sent notice by post

Smt. Somarapu Vijaya Laxmi, W/o Somarapu Satyanarayana, Aged: 50 years, Occ: House wife, R/o 8-3-228/1337, 1st Floor, Rahamathnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Vijaya Laxmi, D/o Rapalle Babu, H.No.8-3-228/1337, First Floor, Rahamath Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

7. From the above table, it is clear that notice was sent to the correct address of the first respondent, as mentioned in the complaint.

8. As per the principle enunciated in K.Sajjan Raj v Gopi Setty Chandra Mouli (2011 (4) ALD 96) when a notice has been sent to the correct address of the party and when the same has been returned as not claimed, the same amounts to service of notice.

9. In C.C. Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammed ((2007) 6 SCC 555) the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:

Section 27 of General Clauses Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by a registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement refused or not available in the house or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in station, due service has to be presumed.

10. The facts of the case on hand are almost similar to the facts of the c