THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6192 of 2008 DATE: 23-03-2011 Between: K.Samuel .. Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6192 of 2008 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) questioning the notices in Roc.No.C1/4514/2007 dated 09.08.2008 and 25.08.2008 asking the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent is in the habit of making series of false complaints. Aggrieved by the said complaints, the petitioner preferred Criminal Petition No.2767 of 2004 before this Court and the same was quashed and the 3rd respondent also filed another petition for claiming maintenance and the same was dismissed and the present petition is motivated only to harass the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has no right to issue notice for appearance of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the petition urged that the respondent No.2 got ample powers to issue notice for the appearance if there are bona fides in the complaint lodged against the petitioner and there is no illegality while issuing notice to the petitioner. Now the point for consideration is whether the notice of respondent No.2 is sustainable? As seen from the petition grounds, the petitioner is working as Superintendent Engineer, ONGC, Mumbai and earlier he was asked to appear before different forums on the complaint lodged by his wife, 3rd respondent. The present complaint is one among the series of complaints filed by her. As seen from the impugned notice dated 09.08.2008 in Roc.No.C1/4514/2007, the Joint Collector (Full Additional Charge), West Godavari District directed the petitioner to attend before the Joint Collector for enquiry on the petition lodged by 3rd respondent. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner also responded to the notice pleading his inability to attend the enquiry but the 2nd respondent insisted the petitioner to appear before the authority for further enquiry. The impugned order did not read under what provision of law, the present notice was issued. It reads as under: “Now therefore Smt.Kommana Samuel, husband of the petitioner is directed to attend before the Joint Collector & Addl. Dist. Magistrate, W.G., Eluru on 23.08.2008 at 11.00 AM without fail.” The impugned notice itself clearly reads that the Joint Collector has not applied his mind while issuing the said notice. The issuance of such notices basing on a report said to have given by the 3rd respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law, much less beyond his jurisdiction. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has no justification in giving the complaint with flimsy grounds and the 2nd respondent ought not to have taken cognizance of the same while issuing notice. Viewed from any angle, it is a fit case where the proceedings issued in the impugned notice are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 23-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6192 of 2008 DATE: 23-03-2011 MR