Back
2000 (4) Crimes 166
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
G.D. Sharma, J.
Dr. Mohammad Akbar Bhat - Petitioner
versus
Abdul Ahad - Respondent
Petition No. 39 of 1997 and
Cr. M.P. No. 37 of 1999
Decided on 27-5-1999
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Roaf Ahmad, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.A. Qayoom, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of inherent power to quash proceedings is called for where complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
Headnote:Indian penal Code, 1860 - Section 500 - Petitioner summoned for offence of defamation in a complaint med by respondent an Advocate - Quashing petition Petitioner had given a complaint to Chief Justice regarding professional misconduct by, respondent - Respondent himself read out contents of complaint in bar room after receiving notice of that complaint from Registrar Vigilence - Allegations made in complaint given by petitioner could not be said to be defamatory because it related to professional misconduct and addressed to authority who under the law was competent to take suitable action Taking cognizance and issuance of process against petitioner was an abuse of process of Court and proceedings were liable to be quashed. (Para 9)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
G.D. Sharma, J. - Today CMP No. 37/99 was fixed wherein prayer has been made for the grant of direction to the in-charge P.S. Indira Gandhi Airport New Delhi for the release of passport No. 232157 dated 24-3-1993, which was seized on the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam. On the agreement of the counsel for the parties, the said CMP is taken up alongwith main petition (Petition No. 39/97) for disposal.
2. The petitioner is a retired Principal of the Government Dental College Srinagar. He has litigation with his ex-daughter-in-law regarding the landed property. The petitioner has alleged that his ex-daughter-in-law had filed a suit against him and his wife and in the plaint intentionally there wrong addresses were given. She in connivance with the respondent herein flied written statement on their behalf and the allegations of the plaint were admitted. On this fraudulent admission on 6-3-1997 the suit was decreed against them. When said decree was put to execution, in the months of April/May, the petitioner came to know about the perpetuation of the fraud. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed the suits for the cancellation of the said decree by pleading mis-representation arid fraud. The trial Judge has stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and the decree.
3. Besides this the petitioner presented a complaint before the Lord Chief Justice regarding the commission of the professional mis-conduct by respondent herein who is an advocate. That complaint was referred to the Registrar Vigilance. The inquiry under law stands initiated and the signatures of the petitioner were sent for comparison to the hand-writing expert (Director Forensic Science Lab) who was opined that the signatures on the power of attorney and the written statement are forged.
4. Respondent herein on 9-9-1997 filed the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam for the commission of offence filing under Section 500 RPC against the petitioner herein. The allegations made in the complaint were that petitioner herein and his wife (deceased) had approached him in his house for soliciting legal advice and requested him to draft the written statement to be filed in the pending suit. They had also engaged him as a counsel by signing the power of attorney. The written statement was drafted on their behalf and they had signed the same as well as the power of attorney. The complaint about the professional misconduct was made by the petitioner herein with the sole idea of harming the professional reputation on the respondent herein and as soon as he received the copy of the summons alongwith the copy of the complaint from the office of the Registrar Vigilance he opened the same in the bar room at Budgam and read contents in presence of the members of the legal fraternity (bar and the Bench) and thus his reputation has been harmed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Budgam examined the petitioner and one of his witnesses and after taking the cognizance of the complaint registered it as complaint No. 23-A of 1997 and thereafter issued the process against the petitioner for the commission of the offence falling under Section 500. RPC.
5. In this petition it is alleged that the proceeding have been initiated against him solely with the purpose of pressurising to withdraw the complaint made before the Lord Chief Justice for professional mis-conduct and that the decree which was obtained against him was the result of fraud and misrepresentation perpetuated with the connivance of the respondents. Civil Suit has been filed for the cancellation of that decree and. interim relief has been granted whereby the operation of the decree has been stayed (before Judge. Small Cause Court Srinagar). The trial Court has wrongly taken cognizance of the complaint as no offence has been committed because petitioner has not defamed him either in the legal fraternity or before the public.
6. Heard the arguments.
The learned counsel appearing for t
