Hausala Prasad Dubey (Advocate) vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—This is a petition u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the charge-sheet dated 21.12.2000, Annexure-6 to the petition and also the proceedings on its basis of the Criminal Case No. 284 of 2001 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Mirzapur, against the Petitioner.

I have heard Shri K. S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the A.G.A. The facts of the case are as follows:

The Petitioner is a practising Advocate of Mirzapur district. A complaint was made against him by Ramesh Baranwal to the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P., Allahabad, that the Petitioner did not possess a valid LL.B. degree and deceitfully got himself enrolled as an advocate. That complaint was numbered as 2 of 2000 and proceedings took place against the Petitioner for removal and ultimately, the name of the applicant was cancelled and he was removed from the roll of advocates. This punishment was awarded to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India u/s 35(3)(d) of Advocates Act, 1961. That thereafter Shri Ramesh Baranwal also lodged a first information report for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 282 of 2000 at police station City, Mirzapur, against the Petitioner. That the allegations in the complaint are the same that the Petitioner has got enrolled himself as an Advocate fraudulently though he did not possess a LL.B. degree. After investigation charge-sheet, Annexure-6 to the affidavit has been filed on which the case has been registered and the applicant has been summoned by order Annexure-7 to the affidavit.

It is contended that disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner before the Bar Council of India was a judicial proceeding as defined in Section 42(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Petitioner has already been awarded punishment in those proceedings u/s 35(3)(d) of the Act. That Section 42(2) provided that the proceedings against the Petitioner were judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 197 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the Disciplinary Commit-tee is to be considered as Court. That, therefore, the Petitioner having been punished for the said offence, he cannot be tried and punished again.

The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is totally mis-conceived. Section 300, Criminal Procedure Code provides regarding bar of the second trial. It does not apply in the present case at all. Even if the proceeding before disciplinary committee of Bar Council is a judicial proceeding it is only for the purposes of Sections 197 and 228, Indian Penal Code which has no relevance. The punishment by the disciplinary proceeding cannot bar the prosecution and punishment for offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code

The next argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the complaint is barred by Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code as the complaint has not been filed by the Court. That the complaint cannot be filed by private person.

This argument of the learned Counsel is devoid of merit. There was no necessity of filing complaint by the Bar Council. The private complaint is maintainable. The disciplinary committee is a Court for limited purposes of Sections 480, 482 and 485, Criminal Procedure Code as provided by Clause (2) of Section 42 of the Advocates Act. The disciplinary committee is not a Court for the purposes of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code The complaint of the private person is, therefore, not barred.

The petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.