JUDGMENT D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. - This writ petition is filed for the following relief: '..to exercise power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (1) to grant writ of Prohibition, Certiorari, prohibiting the Magistrate to operate further in C.C.No.133 of 2010 on the record of Hon'ble II Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajahmundry call for the complete records to quash all proceedings after 22.11.2011 and send to Hon'ble Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nuzvid along with originals in CrI.P.No.8158 of 2011 directing expeditious trail within 6 months ..' 2. This Court has heard the party in person, who attempted valiantly to justify his stand and the learned Government Pleader for Home. 3. A reading of the affidavit shows that the petitioner is dissatisfied with the sequence of events that occurred in the Court of II Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajahmundry in C.C.No.133 of 2010. He was also dissatisfied with the manner in which he was arrested. The fact remains that he is a party to a matrimonial dispute filed against him by the 2nd respondent. Particular stress was laid upon the procedure in C.C.No.133 of 2010 in which the petitioner is accused No.1. He is dissatisfied with the manner in which a non-bailable warrant has been issued and has also filed a perjury application which is returned a number of times. An application for certified copies were also supposedly returned. He also states that there is tampering of a docket order. Basing on these allegations, the party in person prays for this Courts interference. He also blames a number of persons, who appeared and calls them gundas in Court, who prevented him from appearing in the Rajahmundry and the Nuzvid Courts. Therefore, he prays for a writ of prohibition and certiorari. He also produced some of the case law on the subject. The ultimate prayer is for a writ of prohibition and certiorari stating that to call for the records with reference to the proceeding in C.C.No.133 of 2010 on the file of the II Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, quashing of proceedings and to send the same to the Hon'ble Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizvid for trial. 4. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the prayer is not clear and is vague. 4. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the prayer is not clear and is vague. It is in the nature of a quash petition, wherein the petitioner seeks to stay quashing of all further proceedings 'after 22.11.2011' and also to send the matter to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid. Thus, both a quashing and transfer are sought in one writ. Therefore, the application is strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondents. 5. This Court notices that the proceedings in C.C.No.133 were initiated in the year 2010. This is evident from the paras 8 and 9 of the writ affidavit and the very number allotted to the case. The petitioner wants this Court to quash the proceedings in this case 'after 22.11.2011 and to send the same to the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizvid'. 6. A perusal of the daily status report of this case C.C.No.133 of 2010 shows that the petitioner Sri M.Gopinadh, is represented by advocate Sri D.Apparao. A.1 and A.3 were present in the Court on 11.12.2011 also. In the recent past and after the present writ was filed in 2018, on 28.12.2022, Accused No.1 and 3 were absent. An absent petition was filed and it was allowed and the matter was listed to 23.01.2023. It is clear that the petitioner has been appearing through a counsel and contesting the matter. 7. In addition, the prayers sought are extremely vague. Normally, a certiorari is issued to set aside the proceeding resulting from a serious flaw in the inferior Court's proceedings. It is a corrective remedy which has ended in a final order. 'Quashing' the criminal proceeding is also an exception rather than the rule. It is to be sparingly exercised. None of the grounds urged by the petitioner meet the standards laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for quashing the proceeding. The net effect of the prayer sought for by the party in person is to quash the proceedings. However, the affidavit or the submissions of the party in person do not lead to a conclusion that this is a fit case to quash all further proceedings. The law on the subject of 'quashing' a complaint are very well settled. The leading judgment of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 still holds the field. The law on the subject of 'quashing' a complaint are very well settled. The leading judgment of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 still holds the field. The submission of the petitioner and his grievances do not attract the conclusions in para 102 and 103 of this leading judgment or the other judgments. The prayer in a way is not for quashing the entire proceedings, but only certain proceedings after 22.11.2011 and to transfer the case to another Court. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner is still participating in the proceedings. The law is reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC Online SC 315. It is again held that power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner can ventilate his grievances about the alleged procedural and other deficiencies in the course of his trial and before the jurisdictional Magistrate only. No ground is made out either to quash the proceedings in part or in full. In the opinion of this Court, the writ petition is totally misconceived. The conduct of the petitioner estops from seeking these reliefs. In the overall scheme of things, it appears to be a writ petition filed to delay the proceedings in the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. 9. For all the above mentioned rules, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.