ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. Seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Crime No. 324/2019 on the file of Kadapa I Town U/G Palem Police Station registered for the offences under the Sections 420, 379 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860[for short ‘IPC’], Accused Nos., 1 and 2 preferred this Petition. 2. The facts mentioned in the Petition, as projected through the complaint is a disturbing example on the way in which professional standards of legal profession are being maintained by a few Advocates. 3. The facts that led to filing of the present petition are; a. The Complainant avers that he is an Advocate, who on 15.07.2019 was approached by a familiar person one Rajasekhar Raju, who brought Accused No.1, an Armed Reserve Constable, Accused No.2, his wife, and one Reddaiah @ Siva in connection with an accident case. It is stated the Accused No.2 informed the Complainant that her neighbour’s son-in-law/ Kovvuru Harinath died in a road accident on 06.07.2019 and the wife of the deceased/Krishnaveni, who is her friend, intends to seek compensation before the Court and she requested the Complainant to help Krishnaveni financially. It is stated that the Complainant asked them to bring Krishnaveni and her father to sign some documents. b. It is further stated that on 16.07.2019, Rajasekhar Raju, Siva, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the Complainant and took an amount of Rs.50,000/- to meet the ceremonial rites and stated that they would bring Krishnaveni and her father and would make them to sign on the documents and a promissory note for a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @12% per annum and to pay the advocate fee @ 10% of the total compensation amount by executing an agreement to that effect. c. Further, it was stated that on 19.07.2019 at 9.30 p.m., Accused Nos.1 and 2 along with Siva came to the office of the Complainant and informed him in the presence of Rajasekhara Raju, Praveen Kumar, Siva Reddy, Raja and Rama Murthy that Eswaraiah, father of Krishnaveni was indebted to several others and stated that other Advocate clerks were offering more than Rs.2,00,000/-, therefore, if the Complainant pays Rs.1,50,000/-, they would bring the claimants to proceed with the case. It is stated that though the Complainant did not wish to take up the case, Accused Nos. It is stated that though the Complainant did not wish to take up the case, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 made him to give a cheque for the remaining Rs.1,50,000/-, by making him to believe that they would bring Krishnaveni and that they would execute a promissory note for the said some. It is stated that though Siva went to bring the promissory note, he returned with empty hands as the shops were closed. d. It is averred that believing the words of the Accused, the Complainant prepared a cheque bearing No.61284 dated 20.07.2019 for Rs.1,50,000/-, and kept it in his diary by asking the Accused to bring the parties to sign the documents and only thereafter the cheque would be given. It is stated on 20.07.2019, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the Complainant’s office, and stated that Siva went to bring the parties. After returning from the Court, the Complainant did not find them in his office and when he made a phone call to Accused No.1, he stated that they would come within half-an-hour, but they did not come. e. It is stated that, when the Complainant searched for the said cheque, he could not find the same in his diary and on enquiry, he came to know that Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed theft of the said cheque and encashed the same. While the Complainant was going to lodge a complaint against the Petitioners, Siva came to him and stated that Accused Nos.1 and 2 went to bring the parties by giving them the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, on 29.07.2019, Siva brought the Vakalat which was signed by Krishnaveni, the wife of the deceased and on seeing the same, the Complainant stated that the signature was not original and asked for the Vakalat, which contains the original signature. f. It is stated further that, when the Complainant tried to file case before the Court and asked for the signatures of Krishnaveni, Accused No.2 asked the Complainant to file the case initially and later Krishnaveni would sign. Believing her words, Complainant filed a case in the Court on 06.08.2019 and the same was given S.R.No.12374 and the same was returned on 08.08.2019. When the Complainant asked Rajasekhara Raju to inform the same to the Petitioners, they switched off the phone. Believing her words, Complainant filed a case in the Court on 06.08.2019 and the same was given S.R.No.12374 and the same was returned on 08.08.2019. When the Complainant asked Rajasekhara Raju to inform the same to the Petitioners, they switched off the phone. Thereafter, on enquiry, the Complainant came to know that, since Accused No.1 had not given the amount to Krishnaveni, they handed over their case to another Advocate namely Sanapalli Nagireddy and he filed the same on 25.07.2019 and the said case was numbered as M.V.O.P. No.296/2019. g. It is averred that, though the Complainant demanded the Petitioners to return his amount, they did not repay the same and asked the Complainant to do whatever he wants to do and abused him in vulgar language. As such, the Complainant lodged the present complaint before the Police against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offences. Grounds Sought for Quashment 4. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against them, Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the present petition on the following grounds: a. There is a delay of 65 days from the date of the incident i.e., 20.07.2019 to the date of complaint i.e., 23.09.2019 and the said delay is unexplained by Respondent No.2. b. Respondent No.2 is into illegal practice of taking percentage of the compensation amount from the accident victims, which is an unethical practice. c. Role of the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is not properly explained by Respondent No.2 and her name is added deliberately in order to put pressure on the first Petitioner. d. Accused No.1 is an Armed Reserve Constable and Respondent No.2 herein deliberately lodged the present complaint in order to put pressure on him to see that the Motor Accident case is handed over to Respondent No.2 at any cost. e. Petitioner No.2 is no way connected to any of the alleged transactions stated in the complaint and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. On these grounds, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for Petitioners, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent No.1 and Sri M.S.P. Kamaraju, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 6. On these grounds, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for Petitioners, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent No.1 and Sri M.S.P. Kamaraju, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that the grievance of the Complainant is that the Petitioners promised him that they would engage the case of Krishnaveni, whose husband died in road accident and collected Rs.50,000/- from him but later Krishnaveni got the motor accident compensation case filed through another advocate. (ii) Learned counsel further submits that on 07.07.2019, the Complainant along with one Rajasekhar Raju on coming to know about the accident in newspaper approached Petitioner No.1, sought his help to encash with Krishnaveni, who is the wife of the deceased, since the Petitioners are neighbours and family friends to Krishnaveni. Learned counsel further submits that the Complainant assured that he is ready to provide some advance amount to the wife of the deceased and generally he used to take 20 to 25% agreement on the compensation amount. It is submitted that, believing the words of the Complainant, Accused No.1 approached the victim Krishnaveni and his agent Rajasekhar Raju. In the negotiations, Complainant has agreed to provide advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to Krishnaveni and promised to pay Rs.50,000/- within a week and remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in due course. (iii) Leaned counsel would submit that, thereafter, Accused No.1 was informed by Krishnaveni that the Complainant has already paid advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to her and he has obtained her signatures on Vakalat and she has handed over the relevant documents. It is submitted that, in that regard on 20.07.2019 Accused No.1 along with Rajasekhar Raju, who is the agent of the complainant and one Shiva went to the office of the complainant and complainant has given bearer cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of Accused No.1 on the very same day it was drawn by IDBI Bank. Learned counsel would submit that, Petitioner/Accused No.1 was instructed to collect the cash and the Bank officials after confirmation of the issuance of the cheque with the Complainant, paid the cash to Accused No.1. Learned counsel would submit that, Petitioner/Accused No.1 was instructed to collect the cash and the Bank officials after confirmation of the issuance of the cheque with the Complainant, paid the cash to Accused No.1. Thereafter they all visited the house of Krishnaveni to hand over the cash but Accused No.1 was informed that the Krishnaveni had already entrusted the motor accident case to another advocate Nagireddy who offered more amount as advance to her. It is further submitted that, said Krishnaveni promised to return the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant within a week or ten days. (iv) Learned counsel further states that, as Krishnaveni refused to take the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, they have proceeded to the office of the Complainant and handed over the amount to him and inturn the Complainant received the amount without any protest. Thereafter, the said Krishnaveni insisted Petitioner No.1 to return her Vakalat and other papers from the Complainant and then she will return the advance amount of Rs.50,000/. The Complainant has not agreed to return the papers unless he receives the amount. As Petitioner No.1 and others insisted, the said Krishnaveni approached the Police and Police made their efforts to settle the issue wherein the Complainant once again requested Krishnaveni to hand over the case. (v) Learned counsel further submits that the complaint does not disclose any averments to attract the offences punishable under Section 420 or 379 of the IPC and that the present complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is stated that the present complaint is made with a delay of 65 days from the date of drawing the amount. It is submitted that only to put pressure on the Petitioner No.1, who is a government servant and the Petitioner No.2 who is noway connected to the alleged transactions, the present F.I.R. is filed. Learned counsel further submits that no offence is made out and prays to allow the petition by quashing the case against the Petitioners. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the Petitioners and others approached the Complainant relating to filing of the case for compensation under Motor Accidents Act. It is submitted that, the Petitioners requested the Complainant to adjust amount in advance to the victim and in the request of Petitioner No.1 a cheque has been issued for Rs.1,50,000/- which was encashed by Accused No.1. It is submitted that, the Petitioners requested the Complainant to adjust amount in advance to the victim and in the request of Petitioner No.1 a cheque has been issued for Rs.1,50,000/- which was encashed by Accused No.1. It is submitted that the Petitioners failed to submit the Vakalatnama and other documents of the victim who is the wife of the deceased. There are no grounds for quashment of the case and prays for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners in Crime No.324 of 2019 on the file of I Town U/G Police Station, Kadapa? Consideration by the Court 9. The entire complaint would show that because the wife of the deceased i.e., Krishnaveni filed M.V.O.P No.296 of 2019 through another Advocate namely, Sanepalli Nagi Reddy, though the complainant invested some amount to get that Vakalat, the present case is lodged. 10. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) To prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise(iii) To secure ends of justice. Section of 482 Cr.P.C. powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice or violation of sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Section 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions. To cite a few, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 at paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 10 SCC 118 at para 57. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 observed as follows; “13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 observed as follows; “13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522 while holding that only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation can be considered in quashment proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus; “5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto” (emphasis supplied) 13. The offences punishable under Section 379 and 420 IPC i.e., theft and cheating are alleged against the Petitioners. Intention of the taker assumes importance so far as the offence under Section 378 of IPC is concerned as the word “dishonestly”, which is defined under Section 24 of IPC is used in the provision. According to Section 24, dishonesty means when there is a wrongful gain to one and wrongful loss to another. A combined reading of Sections 378, 23 and 24 of IPC is essential to observe the ingredients of theft. Therefore, to prima facie satisfy the ingredients under Section 378 of IPC, it must be shown that movable property is taken without consent, with dishonest intention i.e., taking the property with an intention to wrongfully gain by unlawful means to cause wrongful loss by unlawful means. Therefore, to prima facie satisfy the ingredients under Section 378 of IPC, it must be shown that movable property is taken without consent, with dishonest intention i.e., taking the property with an intention to wrongfully gain by unlawful means to cause wrongful loss by unlawful means. On the other hand, to attract the offence under Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. 14. A fair look at the contents of the complaint herein does not reveal the way in which a wrongful gain happened to the Petitioners and a wrongful loss occurred to the Complainant or the way in which deception and inducement took place. The averments in the complaint itself negate the stand taken by the Complainant that the offence of theft and cheating took place. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the complaint was lodged after 65 days. Though the delay itself cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings, it can in appropriate cases be a relevant consideration in determining the nature of litigation. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that there are no prima facie ingredients to satisfy the offences alleged against the Petitioners. 15. Legal profession is the backbone of the justice delivery system and it has a significant role to play in upholding the rule of law. They take the law to the public. It is very important for the members of the Bar to maintain integrity and discipline in discharging their bounden duty. The manner in which the alleged incident occurred and the way in which the Complainant being an Advocate by profession behaved to get Vakalat in Motor Accidents case, and has narrated the series of events in the form of the present F.I.R., warrant serious deliberation on the observance of professional standards. It is beneficial to refer to the following rules provided in the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette under Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules, made under the Section 49 (1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The preamble of the Rules call the Advocates to fearlessly uphold the client interests. It is beneficial to refer to the following rules provided in the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette under Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules, made under the Section 49 (1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The preamble of the Rules call the Advocates to fearlessly uphold the client interests. Section I of the Rules deals with the Duty to the Court, whereas Section II provides for the Duty to the Client. The following are the relevant Rules thereunder; “20. An advocate shall not stipulate for a fee contingent on the results of litigation or agree to share the proceeds thereof. 31. An advocate shall not enter into arrangements whereby funds in his hands are converted into loans. 32. An advocate shall not lend money to his client for the purpose of any action or legal proceedings in which he is engaged by such client. Explanation. An advocate shall not be held guilty for a breach of this rule, if in the course of a pending suit or proceeding, and without any arrangement with the client in respect of the same, the advocate feels compelled by reason of the rule of the Court to make a payment to the Court on account of the client for the progress of the suit or proceeding” 16. In the light of the discussion supra, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to send a copy of this order to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh to take appropriate measures, as per law. 17. In result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 324 of 2019 on the file of Kadapa I Town U/G Palem Police Station, are hereby quashed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.