1. The respondent no.2, an Advocate (complainant) desires to argue the matter for himself. His Counsel, Mr.Ketan Chottani is discharged. Heard extensively. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Aunique litigation between an Advocate and his client has reached this court. On a complaint by respondent no.2, process for offence under Section 420, 120B of I.P.C. issued by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, on 15.2.2012, confirmed in Criminal Revision No.157 of 2012 by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, is questioned by original accused.

3. The accused-applicants, a couple had difference in their matrimonial life, had approached respondent no.2 for his legal advise. Applicant no.1 Smt. Dnyananda (W ife), was known to the complainant through her parents. The complainant advised that a petition for Divorce by mutual consent could be filed. Parties had 4-5 sittings. Complainant e-mailed draft of such consent petition to the wife, while it could not reach the husband. After the draft having been transmitted to the accused-applicants, the complainant/Advocate did not receive any response. He felt, he was deceived as his skill in legal profession as utilized and a fraud was played upon him by the couple, by using the draft of mutual divorce.

4. During submissions of learned Counsel for the accused-applicants, at the midst, court has asked him whether his clients are ready to pay professional fees by whatever name it is called, to original complainant and on instructions he has said his client would release Rs.20,000/-without prejudice to their rights, to get rid of the mischievous prosecution which is according to him is indeed a persecution.

5. During turn, for the original complainant- an Advocate, same question was put to him and he says, if Rs.50,000/-are released, he has no objection to entertain the petition for quashing.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there could not be an element of breach of contract or there could not be element of criminal conspiracy to attract effect of provisions of Section 120B. He says, the couple was at the loggerhead at the initial stage, and it could not be termed that they had hatched a conspiracy to deceive the complainant, an Advocate known to them. It is an act of God having approached for legal advice, but the prosecution brought them together and now they are fighting unitedly.

7. The party-in-person/ the complainant, at the outset raised objection in respect of maintainability of the petition as scope of exceptional jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exhausted lightly and in such a superficial manner. He says, it is a chance litigation. According to him, his services as a professional/advocate were availed. They had promised to pay him half of the professional charges, but they did not pay it. The element of deception is apparent. According to him, two situations are carved out in Section 415 of I.P.C. and his allegations squarely fit in the later part thereof. He has relied to the judgment of Smt.Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947 , to the judgment in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 , and to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors reported in AIR 2011 SC 20 .

8. There should not be a contest on legal proposition in respect of exercise of powers of this Court in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In AIR 1960 SC 866, in the matter of R.P.Kapoor, the legal position was explained which has been referred in subsequent judgments. The three Judges bench in the matter of Gyansingh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 while dealing with situation of permitting compounding in non compoundable cases, has also again impressed as to what are the parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the latest judgment in the matter of Amit Kapo