Cognizance for offences under IPC Sections 172 to 188 requires a written complaint from a public servant, and lack of supportive evidence negates prosecutorial action.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 5724 of 2022 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143 , 186, 188, 189, 294(b), 341, 353, 506(i) & 509 of IPC & Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property Desertion Act , 1992.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 20.11.2015 , the 1^st accused is said to have protested stating that one male CISF Personnel in civil dress has video graphed a lady advocate when she was being frisked in the booth. It is further alleged that at 4.00 p.m. on the same day, the group of advocates is said to have assembled and scolded the CISF Personnel with unparliamentary words.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that totally there are 9 accused and the petitioners arrayed as A1 to A5, A7 to A9. As per the complaint, the occurrence alleged said to have taken place on 20.11.2015, but the second respondent lodged the complaint only on 22.11.2015. There is no explanation by the second respondent for the delay in lodging the complaint. After the period of seven years from the date of registration of F.I.R, the first respondent filed final report before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Based on the said complaint, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry as against the accused for professional misconduct and subsequently transferred to the Special Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of Karnataka. Ultimately, the Special Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council State of Karnataka passed final order dated 20.11.2016 holding that the petitioners herein guilty of professional misconduct and suspended them from practice as advocate for a period of one year from the date of order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal in D.C.Nos.87 of 2026 & etc batch, before the Bar Counsel of India. Pursuant to the same, the Bar Council of India vide order dated 14.04.2018 to set aside the order passed by the Special Disciplinary Committee, Karnataka State of Bar Council. The relevant portion of the said order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, is extracted hereunder :-

“The whole basis for initiation of proceedings against the appellants is the complaint submitted by the Senior Commandant (CISF) which is marked as Exhibit C-2. This discloses that the Senior Commandant was very much at the place of occurrence and it was after his persuasion, that the group of advocates have disbursed. Even in the complaint, it was not mentioned that any serious criminal acts have taken place. In fact, the complaint is filed on the basis of apprehensions; and the same is evident from the concluding paragraph of Ex.C2, which reads as follows:-

“There is a strong apprehension that if appropriate preemptive actions are not taken against the below mentioned personnel they would be further emboldened to create more serious problems”

We are yet to come across a system of law, where a person can be punished just on the basis of apprehension. Keeping aside the aspects mentioned above, it is fairly clear that the entire incident occurred on account of a sensitive issue. A lady advocate is said to have been video graphed by a male officer, in the course of frisking. The complaint, Ex.C2 runs into th