THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.28543 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in calling the petitioners to the Police Station, even though C.C.No.188 of 2011 filed against the first petitioner was disposed of by the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, holding that the petitioner need not attend the Police Station of the first respondent as the petitioner has been kept under probation for a period of one year from 29.07.2011, as arbitrary and illegal. C.C.No.188 of 2011 was filed against several persons including the petitioner for offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {IPC}, i.e., for theft of a motor cycle. The first petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 411 IPC by the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and, by judgment dated 29.07.2011, he was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to maintain good behaviour for a period of one year. He was placed under the supervision of the Probation Officer, Rajahmundry. The first petitioner was also involved in C.C.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram, C.C.No.19 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and C.C.No.366 of 2011 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner would contend that he is sought to be implicated in Crime No.172 of 2011 of IV Town P.S., Visakhapatnam, Cr.Nos.96 and 147 of 2011 of Gajuwaka P.S. for recovery of stolen properties. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in calling him to the Police Station everyday. A counter affidavit is filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Pithapuram, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court only to avoid being prosecuted in several criminal cases pending against him. It is stated that, at present, three cases are pending against the first petitioner in C.C.No.11 of 2006, C.C.Nos.143 and 116 of 2011. The respondents would deny the first petitioner’s allegations that he has been implicated in these cases. He would state that, since cases are pending against the first petitioner, the investigating agency was duty bound to summon the accused and to enquire from them. Reference is also made to the fact that W.P.No.29758 of 2011 filed by the petitioners’ brother, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, was closed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 20.10.2011. The fact that several criminal cases are pending against the petitioner is borne out both from the writ affidavit and the counter affidavit. The investigating officer cannot be faulted in calling upon the petitioners to attend the Police Station in connection with the investigation being carried out by them. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 29th October 2011 RRB