R MURTHI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To quash the F.I.R. No. 43 of 2007 of Rural Police Station, Proddatur, Kadapa District, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

(2.) A private complaint is lodged by the second respondent/complainant alleging that the complainant, during the course of his business transaction, contracted 4 or 5 debts and he said to have issued post dated cheques, but they were dishonoured and therefore his creditors filed private complaints registered as S.T.C.Nos. 49 of 2003, 54 of 2004 and 65 of 2004 before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate, Proddatur against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of the cheques. Thereupon, the complainant approached the petitioner/accused, who is an advocate, with confidence to appear in the above cases and defend him. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed criminal case against one C. Subramanyam, the petitioner herein colluded with the said Subramanyam and got one criminal case dismissed for default on 6-5-2004 by not informing the complainant about the date of hearing of the case. The second respondent filed the petition before the court for condonation of complainant'sabsence during hearing but the petitioner deliberately failed to submit the petitioner to the Court. In respect of other cases, the petitioner did not evince any interest to complete the proceedings. Therefore, the complainant got engaged another advocate and obtained certified copy. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein voluntarily created insolvency proceedings and filed the same in I.P.No. 99 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur by forging signatures of the complainant and without his knowledge and consent with mala fide intention to see that he would not recover any amount from his debtors who issued cheques. But, the same was got dismissed by reporting no instructions on 2-8-2005. This fact was known to the complainant only after relation with the petitioner was strained. Then, the complainant got issued a legal notice calling upon him to explain about the created insolvency proceedings and dismissal of the criminal complaint. Hence, the present complaint. The complaint was referred to police who registered the same as crime no. 43 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 193, 196, 465 and 468 I.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second respondent herein knows about filing of the insolvency proceedings and that he himself filed a petition inn S.T.C. No. 49 of 2004 admitting the factum of filing of the insolvency proceedings and so question of false evidence or forging signature of the complainant does not arise; that unless the complainant gives full details of his creditors numbering about 36 and the debts incurred by him, it would not be possible for an advocate to fabricate or state those debts and the names of the creditors; that with a mala fide intention to black mail the petitioner/advocate, the present complaint is lodged. Hence, the prayed to quash the impugned proceedings.