IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be pursued when the matter is sub judice in a civil context, as it constitutes an abuse of process of law.

ORDER :

Crl.P.No.6796 of 2024 is filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4 in Cr.No.187 of 2024 of Musheerabad Police Station Hyderabad. Crl.P.No.6797 of 2024 is filed by the accused Nos.2 and 5 in the said crime. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in Crime No.187 of 2024 of Musheerabad Police Station registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 471, 476, 425, 504 r/w.Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’).

2. The allegations against the petitioners are that a letter dated 15.05.2024 was received by the 2nd respondent which contain a reply notice of M.Shiv Shekar, Advocate, to the Bar Council of Telangana. A complaint was filed before the Bar Council of Telangana by one K.Balraj, Advocate who is the husband of 2nd respondent against M.Shiv Shekar, Advocate. In the reply given by M.Shiv Shekar, a bald and baseless allegation was made against the 2nd respondent causing intentional damage to her reputation. Further there were four sworn affidavits of D. Raju (A.2), V.Gopal (A.1), Ch. Narahari (A.5) and M.Prasanna Shekar (A.4), which contains bald allegations against the 2nd respondent. All these affidavits were created and fabricated and the sworn affidavits prepared by Ch.Narahari (A.5) in the name of non-existing Manasaveena Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., which was closed in the year 2010. However, the seals of the company were created and the stamp paper was signed by A.5 in the capacity of Chairman by making a false document and projecting it to be genuine and cheated. The stamp papers were also duly attested by C.Samuel (A.6) damaging the reputation of 2nd respondent. Hence, complaint was filed against the petitioners.

3. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocents of the offences alleged. The entire complaint arises from the same issue that is Sub-Judice before the Bar Council of Telangana. Further the 2nd respondent filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against the professional mis-conduct of A.3. A.3 is the advocate appearing on behalf of V.Gopal (A.1) and V.Sujatha in O.S.No.689 of 2013 pending on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was filed by the 2nd respondent against accused No.1 and V.Sujatha and four other defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 therein are the bonafide purchasers. The defendant No.4 in the said suit is the husband of 2nd respondent and other defendants are the family members of 2nd respondent and they internally settled the matter and decided not to contest the suit. The contesting parties are defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, now they have backtracked with an intention to grab the land and pendency of said suit was suppressed by the 2nd respondent boring grudge against A.3 and also implicated the wife of A.3 who is none other than A.4. Absolutely, there is no allegation made against A.4 apart from stating that sworn affidavit submitted by them is fabricated and false. Even the allegations are taken into consideration no offence under Section 467 I.P.C, is attracted as there is no allegation regarding documents issued by the A.3 that either they were created or fabricated. In fact, the specific allegation is against the sworn statement issued by A.5. Therefore, as against the petitioners, Section 467 of I.P.C is not attracted. Moreover, if at all there is any fabrication, then the same will be decided before the statutory authority i.e., the Bar Council of Telangana.

5. Learned counsel further contended that Sections 471 and 476 of I.P.C, also do not attract against the petitio