The imputation should be published to the knowledge of third parties to satisfy the requirements of Section 499 of IPC, and the accused may be protected by the exceptions provided in the law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the case in CC.No.708 of 2021 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, George Town, Chennai and quash the same.

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the case in CC.No.708 of 2021 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, George Town, Chennai and quash the same.)

Common Order

1. These criminal original petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.708 of 2021 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, George Town, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 499 & 500 r/w 34 of IPC as against the petitioners.

2. There are totally four accused, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4. The respondent lodged private complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC alleging that he filed public interest litigation writ petition in WP.No.11229 of 2019 as a counsel on record for the petitioner before this Court against the authorities and against the first accused for direction directing the Administrator General and Official Trustee to take possession of the assets of the first accused company. However, it was dismissed on 08.07.2019. He has appeared for a petition for direction in Crl.OP.No.20589 of 2018 on behalf of one, Quentin Dawson against One Million Foundation Private Limited who claimed the property of the said One Million Foundation Private Limited as his own property. The petitioner in the said petition is an executor and beneficiary and the last Will and testament of late.George Joseph Chambers s/o K.H.Chambers, grandson of late.George Alexander Chambers, Founder of the Chrome Leather Company as proprietor thereof. The said property was purchased by the registered sale deed vide document No.858 of 1907 and 859 of 1907 by the compromise decree dated 19.02.1965 in CS.No.46 of 1963 and CS.No.2 of 1964 between Roys Edwin Medcalf Chambers and his legal heirs have been vested with powers to enjoy the said property situated at No.26, Erabalu Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai admeasuring seven grounds and 132 sq.ft. While being so, One Million Foundation Private Limited represented by one, Anish C. Bhadani and others created forged unregistered power of attorney by impersonation and forged the signature of Roys Edwin Medcalf Chambers and obtained sale deed dated 29.08.1984. Due to the said petition, the second accused obtained authorisation to present the complaint against the respondent before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry. In the said complaint, it was made utter false and fictitious allegations to threat with ulterior motive to defame the respondent and his reputation and to cause mental agony. The respondent had filed petitions as a counsel for the respective parties to recover valuable property and as such he had no personal gain.

3. Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first accused through the second accused has initiated proceedings as against the respondent before Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry. The respondent is an advocate and counsel on record for Mr.Quentin Dawson in several proceedings particularly in Crl.OP.No.20589 of 2018 along with one, Marimuthu. The said Marimuthu had filed writ petition before this Court under the guise of public interest litigation in WP.No.11229 of 2019 in order to achieve the illegal object of Quentin Dawson which he cannot achieve directly. It was dismissed by this Court with remarks. In the said writ petition, one, Marimuthu is the petitioner and respondent is counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the said writ petition was filed in collusion with the said Mr.Quentin Dawson for unlawful gain, thereby they committed an act of misconduct and utilising their position as an advocate. In fact, Bar Council of Tamilnadu did not take any