THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3504 OF 2007 Date:01.12.2009 Between: K.V.Nagarjuna ……Petitioner And: Thadapaneni Vasu and another ….. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3504 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 2nd accused (A-2) for quashing proceedings in C.CNo.181 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guruzala relating to the offences punishable under Sections 200, 205, 177, 182, 193, 197, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 filed O.S.No.106 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guruzala for permanent injunction in representative capacity against M/s. Sri Sai Cable Net Work and another. In that suit, A-2 was advocate for the plaintiff/A-2 herein. A-1 filed third party affidavits in that suit in support of his contention. Those affidavits included that of the complainant/1st respondent. It is alleged that he did not give any third party affidavit in favour of A-1 and that false affidavit was filed in his name by forging his signature. A-3 is another advocate who is said to have attested alleged signature of the 1st respondent in that affidavit. With the said allegations, the 1st respondent filed private complaint in the lower court against A-1 to A-3 and it was taken on file by the lower court for the above sections of penal liability. As per Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 463, 471, 475 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of that court or by such officer of the court as that court may authorise in writing in this behalf or of some other court to which the court is subordinate, if the said offences have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court. In that view of the matter, the lower court should not have entertained the complaint filed by the 1st respondent and should not have taken cognisance of the same, having regard to bar contained in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, A-2 who is the petitioner herein being an advocate, has no role in preparation of documents or affidavits. He has to present those documents and affidavits which were furnished to him by A-1 and it is not his duty to verify or find out genuineness of documents and affidavits brought by his client. Even as per averments in the complaint, there is no specific allegation against A-2 about preparation of the affidavit or forging signature of the complainant therein. Thus, A-2 had no role in preparation of the affidavit, except presenting the same in civil court on behalf of his client who is A-1. In that view of the matter, no liability much less criminal liability is attached to A- 2 for performing his duty of presenting case of his client before the civil court. Thus, viewed from any angle, private complaint filed by the 1st respondent against A-2 is not sustainable both on facts as well as in law. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gurazala in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J 01.12.2009, Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3504 OF 2007 Date:01.12.2009 Gk.