- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Crpc 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 CJM, Mirzapur against the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard Shri K. S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the AGA. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner is a practicing 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. The 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 under Section 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, 471 IPC as 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 under Section 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 IPC and the Disciplinary Committee is to be considered as Court. That, therefore, the petitioner having been punished for the said offence he cannot be tried and punished again.
(3.) THE argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is totally mis-conceived. Section 300 Crpc provides regarding bar of the second trial. It does not apply in the present case at all. Even if the proceedings before disciplinary committee of Bar Council is a judicial proceedings it is only for the purposes of Sections 197 and 228 IPC which has no relevanc. THE punishment by the disciplinary proceeding cannot bar the prosecution and punishment for offences under the provisions of the IPC. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint is barred by Section 195 Crpc as the complaint has not been filed by the Court. That the complaint cannot be filed by private person.;