THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.7297 OF 2009 ORDER The quash proceedings are filed questioning the impleadment of the Public Prosecutor as second respondent in Crl.P.No.40 of 2007 and also questioning the act of the third respondent herein, who is the Advocate for the first respondent. A maintenance claim in MC.No.43 of 2004 was filed on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku by the first respondent and the petitioner herein is the husband and claims to be an Advocate. The petitioner herein has taken a plea of adulterous life of the wife. Somehow after the trial, the petition was dismissed. As against that order, the third respondent on behalf of the first respondent has filed the revision petition and the grounds of revision are signed by the third respondent. It is pleaded that the grounds mentioned in the revision are not correct and reckless and, therefore, the third respondent has to be warned. The further claim is that though the second respondent-State is not a party, it was shown as a party in the revision petition. Evidently, any grounds of appeal are singed by the Advocates and there is no grievance for the first respondent about the grounds alleged in the revision petition and the grounds only challenges the correctness of the findings. In fact, it is the petitioner herein who has attributed adulterous life to his wife. So far as adding the State as a second respondent, no motives can be inferred since in all the criminal revision petitions generally the State is being shown as a party. Mere adding the State as a party will not cause any loss to the petitioner nor defeat the proceedings. At the time of hearing, the petitioner can bring into the notice of the Court and in these matters it is common knowledge that the Public Prosecutor will never argue about the claims. The application seems to have been filed with ulterior purpose and to detract the proceedings. There are absolutely no merits calling for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 15-12-2011 TSNR