IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3123 of 2010 DATE:06.04.2010 Between: Sk.Ahmadunnisa @ Suriya Begum …… Petitioners/Accused. And: State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor And another …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3123 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/accused is stated to be advocate practising at Guntur. There is no dispute that the petitioner was advocate for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant before the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur in complaint No.187 of 2008 relating to a money dispute between the 2nd respondent and G.E. Money Financial Services Limited. It is alleged that the matter before District Legal Services Authority was closed on 10.09.2008 and that without disclosing the same to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner criminally, illegally and fraudulently obtained Rs.2,000/- from the 2nd respondent on certain representation and that three months thereafter, the petitioner obtained another sum of Rs.5,000/- from the 2nd respondent on certain other representation that those amounts should be deposited before the District Legal Services Authority. The 2nd respondent also gave report to the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against the petitioner under Section 35 of the Advocates Act and it is stated to be pending. It is further alleged by the 2nd respondent that fake payment schedules were shown by the petitioner stating that those amounts should be paid before the District Legal Services Authority. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in the petition given to the Bar Council, the 2nd respondent alleged payments on 14.07.2008 and 07.07.2008, which dates are prior to disposal of the complaint by the District Legal Services Authority. At this stage, it cannot be said that those two payment schedules attached to the petition filed before Bar Council are the same as those alleged in the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent alleges time gap of three months between the two payments. Whereas photostat copies of payment schedules attached to petition filed in Bar Council and which were filed before this Court are with a time gap of only seven days. On the basis of private complaint which was forwarded to the police, the police registered case in Crime No.46 of 2010 in Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 419, 423 and 488 I.P.C. It is a matter for investigation and a matter to be decided after collection of evidence during investigation. Such questions of fact cannot be entertained in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, I do not find any merits in this petition. 3) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 6, 2010 KSH