IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 91 OF 2010 SMT. JYOTI RAJESHWAR RAO ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH P.P AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mrs. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Amey Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 23rd December, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. The Petitioner's complaint filed under Sections 509, 354, 504 was registered as Crime No.13/2008 and was treated as "A" Final. It is for the learned J.M.F.C. to give a notice, if at all before granting the summary. The Police Inspector in charge of the Police Station has nothing to do with it. There are several preliminary objections taken by Shri Amey Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Goa, as regards the maintainability of this petition, and for the view we are taking it is not necessary to go into the same. Suffice it to observe that the learned SPCA has noted that the Petitioner had not disclosed that she had filed a complaint before the learned J.M.F.C. and had approached the learned SPCA with inordinate delay of more than two years, which in the opinion of the learned SPCA, was self defeating. The learned SPCA has also found that there is no case of gross misconduct made out. Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the finding of the learned SPCA cannot be faulted in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others((2006) 8 SCC 1). This is not a fit case for interference in supervisory jurisdiction. Petition disposed off. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.