Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The 1st defendant, who is the complainant herein filed criminal complaint on 05.12.2022 addressed to the Inspector of Police, Police Station Mir Chowk, Hyderabad. In the said complaint, it is alleged that A1 has filed the suit with false documents. The malicious and vexatious suit was filed with the help of these petitioners who are counsels of A1, intentionally to insult and humiliate the complainant having knowledge that he is a member of Lambada community (ST). Even these petitioners having full knowledge of the case, knowing it to be false, with an intention to insult and humiliate the complainant within the public view i.e., in the open Court of law of XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, argued a false case resulting in granting of ad- interim injunction in favour of A1/plaintiff.

9. This Court cautioned the learned counsel appearing for the complainant not to advance such arguments. However, learned counsel had repeatedly stated that the higher caste people were humiliating and insulting the SC & ST people. On repeatedly insisting to stick to the facts of the case, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that a false suit was filed with fabricated documents.

When questioned by the Court, as to who according to the complainant fabricated the documents, the counsel replied that it was A1 who fabricated the documents to grab Acs.2000 acres of patta land. A1 was involved in several criminal cases. In the present circumstances, when suit was filed with fabricated documents it is for the police to investigate and to know how orders were obtained by filing false suits. He further submitted that these petitioners have intentionally ill-advised the plaintiff to file the present suit and argued the case knowing it to be false.

13. According to the Counsel, the averments made in the compliant with regard to insulting the complainant and false submissions being made in open Court, prima facie attract offences under SC ST (POA) Act and also for criminal intimidation punishable under section 506 of IPC. To conclude, A1 is a habitual offender who fabricated documents and these petitioners have filed a false suit against complainant, for which reason, investigation has to go on.

In the present case, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has been repeatedly stating that the petitioner/Advocates have entered into conspiracy to file a false suit. As already discussed in the above paragraphs, an Advocate propagates his client's rights before a Court on his instructions. There is nothing in the complaint even remotely suggest that the petitioner/accused in any manner have done any illegal act by filing the suit against the complainant.