Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR against a lawyer who was booked to cast aspersions on a woman’s character while arguing a case.

A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, was hearing a petition filed by Advocate Ratnadeep Patil, who questioned a woman’s character while arguing on the client's instructions.

Patil was representing one Vaishali Koli in a cheating case. While arguing he made statements against the informant and her husband stating that they were involved in an illicit relationship with the police officer.

A complaint was filed against Patil and he was booked for outraging the modesty of the woman. The woman in her complaint did not mention the statement made about the illicit relationship but later approached the police station and mentioned the illicit relationship. 

The complainant argued that the statements were intentional. However, Patil argued that statements were made based on his client's instructions.

While quashing the FIR the bench in its order noted that even if he had cast aspersions upon her character, since they were based on the instructions received from his clients, it was appropriate to extend the privilege of an Advocate

“..since we find that there was no intention on part of the Petitioner to insult her modesty, as he was only discharging his duty of defending his clients in the remand proceedings and even if he had cast aspersions upon her character, since they were based on the instructions received from his clients, which has reference in the complaint made on-line and its receipt in the police station is not denied, we deem it appropriate to extend the privilege of an Advocate to the present Petitioner and moreso, what we find is, the statement is not unconnected to the case, as it is the case of his client that by using the pressure tactics, they were being coerced to pay the money,” the order reads.

Furthermore, the bench noted, "It is highly unbelievable that a woman, who is aggrieved by the unjustified comment made against her, when approached the Court, failed to refer the utterance. But, immediately when she approached the police station in the evening, accompanied by her lawyer, she specifically make this assertion by stating that the Petitioner had accused her of having a love affair with police officer and with his aid, has conspired to implicate the accused persons,” the order states.

Case title: Ratnadeep Ram Patil vs State of Maharashtra