THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4525 of 2008 Date: 07.12.2011 Between: Saripalli Ramasattiyya and others. ..... Petitioners. AND The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4525 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.62 of 2008 on the file of the Narsapur Town Police Station, Narsapur. The 2nd respondent is the defacto- complainant. The petitioners seek for the quashing of the First Information Report. 2. Petitioners 1 & 2 are said to be advocates practicing at Narsapur, West Godavari District. The 3rd petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd petitioner. The 4th petitioner is a cousin of the 3rd petitioner. The 1st petitioner is said to be a friend of the 2nd petitioner. 3. The 2nd respondent is the husband of the 3rd petitioner. The 2nd respondent filed a pre-litigation case before the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam through his letter dated 05-11-2002. He complained that the 3rd petitioner went away along with their two minor children and refused to join him. He sought for the restitution of conjugal rights as well as the custody of the minor children. On 14-11-2002, the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam issued a notice to the 3rd petitioner. The 3rd petitioner would appear to have responded to the notice denying the contention of the 2nd respondent. 4. While so, on 03-01-2003, the 2nd respondent issued a notice to the 3rd petitioner seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and the custody of the children. Perhaps as a retaliation, the 3rd petitioner filed C.C.No.322 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur under Section 498A IPC against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, however, was acquitted through the judgment dated 06-08-2007. The 3r d petitioner preferred a criminal revision before this Court. The same is said to be pending. 5. In C.C.No.322 of 2003, the 2nd respondent herein filed voluminous written arguments. Inter alia, he made allegations against former Hon'ble Judges of this Court who were working as Judges of this Court at that time on the ground that they belonged to Narsapur and were under the influence of the petitioners 1 & 2. Sri K. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the written arguments to show the attitude of the 2nd respondent herein. 6. While the 3rd petitioner filed C.C.No.322 of 2003, the 2nd respondent in his turn filed O.P.No.60 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam on 27-01-2003 seeking for divorce. It was, however, subsequently, transferred to Narsapur and was numbered as H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur. In the Chief Affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2005, allegations were once again made against the then sitting Hon’ble Judges of the High Court. However, H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2005 under which the 2nd respondent sought divorce was dismissed on 30-10-2007. Appeal from the same is also pending before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conduct of the 2nd respondent is reprehensible and that no weight can be given to the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is a party-in-person. He did not appear before the Court. I, however, consider that the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent cannot be dismissed on the ground that his conduct towards the 3rd petitioner and towards the Court is obnoxious, if not vulgar. The only consideration is whether the complaint made out a prima facie case against the petitioners? 8. The 2nd respondent alleged that the petitioners threatened the advocate of the 2nd respondent and the Court staff restraining them from cooperating with the 2nd respondent. He also alleged that the petitioners obtained illegal benefit in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2005 and also administered oral threats to the 2nd respondent. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, these allegations of the 2nd respondent are sweeping being as vague as anything. The approximate dates and the time and place when the alleged incidents occurred had not been stated in the complaint. The complaint indirectly cast aspirations against former Hon’ble Judges of this Court. The complaint is sheerly omnibus de hors the details and devoid of any material particular. The allegations through the complaint are so improbable on account of the very nature of the complaint and deserve to be rejected. I, consequently, allow this petition. The First Information Report in Crime No.62 of 2008 on the file of the Narsapur Town Police Station, Narsapur, West Godavri District is hereby quashed as against the petitioners herein. ____________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:07.12.2011 mrb