K. RAMACHANDRIAH, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a practicing Advocate at Nclamangala. He has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the show-cause notice dated 10-10-1990 issued to him by the J. M. F. C. , Nclamangala (for short 'the Magistrate') in C. C. No. 836 of 1990 on his file calling upon him to show-cause on or before 15-10-1990 why action should not be taken against him as per law for having identified a wrong person as A-6. First paragraph of the said show-cause notice reads thus:"you are hereby directed to take notice that you are the counsel for accused nos. 1 and 6 in C. C. No. 788 of 1989, on the file of this Court and you are aware that on 9-10-1990, you have made attestation of thumb impression of one ganganna as A-6 Narasaiah, s/o Gangaiah, aged about 24 years, on enquiry it is found that you have identified a wrong person who has appeared in place of accused No. 6 in C. C. No. 788 of 1989. " ( 2 ) IT can be gathered from the contents of the above extracted show-cause notice and the submissions made by Sri H. C. Hanumaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was appearing for accused Nos. 1 and 6 in c. C. No. 788 of 1989. On 9-10-1990, petitioner appears to have made attestation to the thumb impression of one Ganganna who appeared as accused no. 6 Narasaiah s/o Gangaiah, aged about 24 years and the said impersonator appears to have been brought to the notice of the JMFC by the concerned clerk by name K. N. Subba Rao, SDA in the Criminal Pending Branch. On the basis of the said report, the learned Magistrate perhaps acting under Section 190, Cr. P. C. took cognizance of the offence under Section 419, IPC against the alleged impersonator for having appeared before him in place of A-6 Narasaiah in C. C. No. 788 of 1989 and remanded him to judicial custody till 15-10-1990. By the same order, he directed issue of show-cause notice to the petitioner Petitioner feels aggrieved by the act of the learned Magistrate in issuing show-cause notice to him. By the same order, he directed issue of show-cause notice to the petitioner Petitioner feels aggrieved by the act of the learned Magistrate in issuing show-cause notice to him. ( 3 ) SRI H. C. Hanumaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence and, even otherwise, the learned magistrate has abused the process of the court in issuing show-cause notice in the terms extracted above to a Member of the Bar by treating as if he was an accused before him, and, therefore, it amounts to abuse of the process of the court calling for interference under Section 482, Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri B. H. Satish, learned High Court Government Pleader, argued in justification of the impugned acts of the learned Magistrate by contending that it is open to the petitioner to appear before the learned magistrate in response to the show-cause notice issued to him and offer his explanation regarding the circumstances under which he attested the thumb impression of Ganganna as if he was A-6 Narasaiah in C. C. No. 788 of 1989. ( 5 ) ON a careful consideration of the contentions urged by the learned counsel on both side, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate could have dealt with the matter more tactfully on the administrative side instead of taking the extreme step of issuing of show-cause notice to an Advocate practicing in his Court. The terminology employed in the show-cause notice also appears to be rather harsh. The consequence of the impugned show-cause notice is that the petitioner has to appear before the learned Magistrate in open court by standing in the position of an accused. Therefore, it would not be proper to allow the show-cause notice to stand as it is. ( 6 ) IN the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugnedshow-cause notice is quashed with liberty to the JMFC, Nelamangala to take such action as he deems necessary against the petitioner after probing into the matter on the administrative side. --- *** --- .