RAJKUMAR MALPANI Vs. AKELLA SREENIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 211 IPC in C.C. No. 205 of 2007 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

(2.) THE 1st respondent/complainant is a practicing Advocate. He was advocate for one Inder Mohan in O.S.No. 1040 of 2011 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. THE petitioner/accused is the opposite party for Inder Mohan in that suit. Alleging that there was a mediation at Boats Club, Secunderabad, in which the 1st respondent/complainant is a member and that after three rounds of deliberations the complainant invited the accused to the club and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- to see that the matter is settled out of court and that the complainant also informed the accused about himself and his client intending to file 25 writ petitions in the High Court and to send petitions to Government Departments in case their demands are not met with; the accused filed BCI TR Case No. 148 of 2003 against the complainant before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. After enquiry. Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India Passed Judgment dated 23-10-2005 holding that the accused failed to prove the allegations. THE Disciplinary Committee observed that as the accused failed to examine Akhil Agarwal, who is an important and strong witness, the allegations made by him against the complainant stood unproved. It resulted in disposal of the complaint made by the accused against the complainant and another by disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India. THEreupon, the complainant (sic complainant) filed the present private complaint before the lower court alleging offence punishable under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner/accused.

(3.) THE lower Court while considering taking cognizance of that case for the above offence, placed reliance on A.N. Gupta v. State (1) 1999 Crl.L.J. 4932 of the Rajasthan High Court. THE lower court observed that as per the wording of Section 211 IPC, not only criminal proceedings instituted, but also false charges for having committed an offence is punishable. THE lower court failed to notice that the alleged false charge must relate to commission of an offence. Neither the proceedings before Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India is a criminal proceeding nor charge in the Disciplinary Proceedings before the Bar Council of India is only in respect of professional misconduct and not offence as such. THE lower court failed to notice distinction between charge of professional misconduct and charge relating to an offence. THE decision in A.N. Gupta1 relates to registration of FIR for a criminal offence on the basis of false report given by the accused. By any stretch of imagination, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the present case wherein there was no allegation of an offence muchless a criminal proceeding launched under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.