1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Criminal Writ Petition No.44/2011 Gaspar Francis Dulip Baptista, Son of late Filipe Antonio Roque Conceicao Baptista, Aged 39 years, Service, Currently employed in the State of Kuwait, Having his local address at Gauravaddo, Calangute, Bardez, Goa. … Petitioner V e r s u s Lourdes Sharmila Mergulhao Baptista, Wife of Gaspar Baptista, Daughter of Antonio da Rosa Lobo, Aged 30 years, Advocate by profession, Residing House no.185/A, Umtavado, Calangute, Bardez, Goa. ….. Respondents Mr. R. Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 30th June, 2011. ORAL ORDER: 2 Heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which were registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.28/2009/A in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa. The petitioner also challenges judgment and order dated 20/3/2010 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mapusa in Criminal Appeal No.153/2009. 3. According to Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are in breach of Section 188 of Cr.P.C in as much as the proceeding in respect of offences alleged to 3 have been committed by the petitioner are not maintainable for want of sanction from Central Government in terms of Section 188 of Cr.P.C.. Mr. Rao further submits that if finally an order is passed against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate may proceed against the petitioner under Section 31 of the Act and therefore the entire proceedings against the petitioner are not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr, AIR 2008 S.C 2392 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I find that the respondent has not sought prosecution of the petitioner, as is evident from the reliefs sought in the application filed by the respondent. The petition filed as such has no foundation. Therefore, I am of the view that Section 188 is not attracted in this case. Reliance placed upon judgment in 4 the case of Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel is totally misplaced. In so far as the judgment and order dated 20/3/2010 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, is concerned, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy by way of revision to this Court and as such the criminal writ petition which is filed almost after a period of 14 months from the date of the impugned order deserves to be summarily rejected. I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is summarily dismissed. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-