Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court in its judgment dated May 29, 2023, upheld charges against a person accused of wrongfully restraining and assaulting a lawyer in court premises. Emphasis was however laid upon the responsibility of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to ensure that his professional obligations are not overpowered by personal biases or prejudices.

“The lawyers are officers of the court and should not be presumed to be only defending the party concerned as part of their duty. They are an essential and powerful pillar of judicial adjudicatory process and therefore, their duty towards a client has to be respected by all concerned. The lawyers are bound by their commitment to the duties cast on them by Part VI (Rules Governing Advocates), Chapter II (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette) of Bar Council of India Rules which define their duties towards the Court, Client, Opponent and Colleagues,” Court said.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while dismissing the petition, observed, “… to hold that the present complaint is false because it is lodged by a lawyer, who was representing a client against whom the assaulter had lodged a complaint a few years back, will be, to say the least, unreasonable and absurd. In case, such a finding is returned by this Court, Advocates will not be able to work or discharge their professional duties without fear. In such a scenario, even if a person injures or assaults an advocate or a lawyer he will seek protection under a plea that the advocate has lodged complaint on behalf of her client.”

It was added that only because there was no CCTV footage and there were variations in the statements regarding the description of the incident, cannot discharge the accused of the charges levelled against him.

“Any complaint received by the police or the Court has to be seen, appreciated and adjudicated upon irrespective of the financial or professional nature or status of either the complainant or the accused. A person’s financial position or profession cannot become a basis for holding that due to their such profession or position, the complaint lodged is false even if in reality they have been assaulted and injured”, Court further said.

Brief Background

The present petition was moved under Section 482 CrPC, 1973 praying for setting aside of the order dated 22.05.2019 whereby charges framed against the petitioner under Ss. 341/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) were set aside.

The FIR in the matter was registered on the complaint of ‘P’, a practicing advocate who had alleged that on 08.02.2017, she appeared before the District Court, Saket, with her client who was accused in a case arising out of the FIR no. 606/2014, wherein the present accused was the complainant. It was alleged that after hearing in the matter got over, the petitioner/accused started misbehaving and hurling abuses against the complainant and while she was going towards her chamber along with her client, the petitioner stopped, assaulted and threatened her.

Ld. MM vide the order dated 14.12.2018 discharged the accused for the alleged offences, holding that, “There is no other statement of any other public witness. The complainant refused to get her medical examination done and there was no CCTV camera found at/ near the place of the incident because of which there is no CCTV recording. It is vaguely alleged that the complainant was beaten, threatened by the accused and that the accused had also misbehaved with her badly and had bitten her hand. Even the statement of Rajender u/s 161 of CrPC vaguely mentions that there was haatha-pai between the accused and the complainant.”

Thereafter, State preferred a Criminal Revision before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge and vide order dated 22.05.2019, the order passed by the Ld. MM was set aside.

Case Title: Dhanpati v. NCT of Delhi | Crl. M.C. 3101 of 2019