IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1369 OF 2010 Between: V. Venkat Ram Reddy … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. & 2 others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1369 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is filed by the husband of the second respondent and father of the third respondent questioning order dated 11.06.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, in Crl.M.P.No.96 of 2010 in M.C.No.381 of 2008, allowing petition filed by the wife under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is stated to be working in M/s.Sree Enterprises, C & F Agents for M/s.Parle Products, at Hyderabad. 2. The present dispute is with regard to designation, period of service and salary of the petitioner. Previously, the respondents 2 and 3 filed Crl.M.P.Nos.368 and 369 of 2008 in the lower Court and by order dated 23.09.2009, the lower Court allowed the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and summoned the records from the Managing Director. In response to the summons, M/s.Sree Enterprises, represented by its authorized signatory, filed letter before the lower Court stating that entire record pertaining to M/s.Sree Enterprises was seized by the Income Tax Department on 10.09.2009 and 11.09.2009 and therefore, they are unable to furnish the particulars to the Honourable Court and that the required information will be submitted as soon as the Income Tax Department lift the prohibition orders. Along with that letter, panchanama relating to the said seizure was enclosed to the lower Court. Therefore, waiting for some time, the lower Court posted the matter for arguments. At that stage, the present petition is filed to reopen the matter again under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and to summon the Managing Director of M/s.Sree Enterprises. The said petition was allowed by the lower Court. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that for family dispute between an employee and his wife, summoning Managing Director of M/s.Sree Enterprises will not arise and that the petitioner is at the risk of losing his job if Managing Director is summoned. When the records are not available with M/s.Sree Enterprises, the question of summoning the Managing Director of M/s.Sree Enterprises will not arise at all. Without records, the Managing Director will not be in a position to speak anything about service particulars of the petitioner. 4. It is contended by the respondent’s counsel that at previous stage of the proceedings, the petitioner admitted that he was working as Manager with 20 years experience in that establishment, and filed counter to that effect. The respondent could have taken advantage of the said admission made by the petitioner in the lower Court record. Instead, the respondents were persistent in summoning the Managing Director. Maintenance case in the lower Court was originally filed in the year 2005 and it was not able to be disposed of by the lower Court even after five long years due to attitude of both the parties. 5. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that again reopening the case and again summoning the Managing Director of M/s.Sree Enterprises, is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 6. In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed at admission stage setting aside order dated 11.06.2010, passed by the lower Court; and directing the lower Court to dispose of the maintenance case on merits as per the material available on record, as expeditiously as possible. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 16, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1369 OF 2010 August 16, 2010 KL