1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 1380/2007 Suresh Chandra Vs. N.C.Jain For the Applicant : Shri M.Shafiqulla, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Rajnish Jain, Advocate ORDER (oral) (21/11/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. The applicant/complainant has filed this revision under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11.06.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Cr.R.No.16/07 setting aside the order dated 29.11.06, passed by the ACJM, Jabalpur in Private complaint Case initiated by the applicant taking the cognizance against the respondent for the offence of section 500 of the IPC, and dismissed the aforesaid complaint of the applicant. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the applicant herein, being Advocate, was engaged by the respondent in some pending case before the Court. Subsequently, as per allegation of the respondent in his mater some professional misconduct was committed by the applicant, on which, the respondent has filed a complaint under section 35 of the Advocate Act, 1961 ( in short `the Act') before the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. Later, in accordance with the procedure, the same was forwarded to the Bar Council of India under section 36(b) of the Act and, ultimately, on consideration, such complaint was dismissed by the Bar Council of India vide dated 8.8.04 holding that the respondent had failed to prove any professional misconduct on the part of the present applicant. Subsequent to such order of Bar Council of India, the applicant has filed the impugned private complaint against the respondent contending 2 that on several occasions, in presence of various Advocates and clients, the respondent has criticized the applicant and pursuant to such act the prestige of the applicant has been adversely affected at large. Due to this reason, he also suffered the loss in his profession because so many clients had taken away their cases from his office. In such premises, the applicant had prayed to prosecute the respondent for the offence under section 500 of the IPC. Subsequent to filing the complaint, at the initiate stage, the statement of the applicant and his witnesses were recorded under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. On appreciation of such statement and the other papers placed before the trial court, the cognizance of the aforesaid section 500 of the IPC was taken against the respondent. The same was challenged by the respondent before the subordinate revisional Court. On consideration , taking into consideration the record of the trial court, by allowing such revision, the aforesaid order of the trial court taking the cognizance in the matter, was set aside, on which, the applicant has come to this court with this revision. 3. Shri M.Shafiqulla, learned appearing counsel of the applicant after taking me through the averments of the complaint, depositions of the applicant as well as the witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C along with the papers placed with the complaint and also the impugned order of both the courts below, argued that on appreciation of the available circumstances and the evidence, the trial court has rightly took the cognizance against the respondent for the offence. The revisional court, in its turn, contrary to the record, has set aside the order under wrong premises. In continuation, he said that criticism of the Advocate by any client alleging something against his bonafide professional activities, is a outright defamation of the counsel. With these submissions, he prayed for restoration of the order of the trial court and set aside the order of the revisional court by admitting and allowing this revision. 4. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully examined the record of the trial court. It is apparent from the impugned order that the same has been passed by the Sessions Judge in a very elaborate manner and also taking into consideration the entire facts stated by the applicant in the complaint as well as the 3 aforesaid depositions recorded at the initial stage of the complaint and also after perusing the papers annexed with the complaint. It appears from the complaint itself that initial complaint was filed with the allegation against the respondent that in presence of various Advocates and the clients, the respondent asked the applicant that “he will get his black coat off”. Some after formal allegations are also stated in the complaint. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation of the respondent that “he will get his black coat off”, the trial court took the cognizance of section 500 of the IPC in the matter while the revisional court after examining the case categorically stated that in the initial complaint filed before the trial court the aforesaid allegation stating that respondent will “get his black coat off” was not stated anywhere in the entire complaint and after filing the complaint, such version was stated by the applicant and his witnesses at first time in their deposition recorded under section 200 of the Cr.P.C 202 of the Cr.P.C and in view of such material omission in the complaint, so also the inconsistency between the complaint and the deposition of the complainant and his witnesses by invoking the vested jurisdiction under section 397 of the Cr.P.C, the order of the trial court taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the respondent was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. 6. Even on re-appreciation of the available circumstances from the complaint as well as the aforesaid deposition of the applicant and his witnesses, I have not found any perversity, infirmity or illegality and appreciation of the same by the Sessions Court in passing the impugned order setting aside the order of the trial court taking the cognizance against the respondent in the matter. Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed at the initial stage of motion hearing. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 4