The Karnataka High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj set aside a complaint filed against an advocate by his client under sections 406 and 420 IPC, on the allegation that he did not obtain favorable orders from the Supreme Court in his case. (K S Mahadevan v. Cyprian Menezes )
Facts of the case
A private complaint was filed by the first respondent - complainant alleging that the petitioner has held out himself to be a very Senior Advocate in Bangalore and having connections with Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and had represented that he could put across the complainant to such Senior Advocates who could represent the matter and obtain favourable orders. It was on that basis, various amounts were paid to the petitioner to be paid to the Advocate appearing before the Supreme Court as also to enable the petitioner to travel to Supreme Court and appear in the said matter.
It was alleged that when the matter was taken up for hearing before the Apex Court and at the end of the day when the complainant called the petitioner enquiring about the status of the matter, the petitioner did not inform him properly and as such, the complainant suspected the bonafides of the petitioner and it is on that basis a criminal complaint came to filed in the aforesaid PCR seeking for action to be taken against the petitioner.
The complainant Cyprian Menezes had alleged in his complaint that since petitioner did not obtain favourable orders, offences under Sections 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 420 (Cheating) of IPC have been committed.
Contention of the Parties
The Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only discharged his duties as an Advocate and has appeared in the matter along with the counsel before the Apex Court. The orders that may be passed by the Apex Court or any other Court is left to the Court. There is only an effort which would be made by a counsel to try and get favourable orders and that is the only promise that was made, which cannot amount to an offence under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC in as much as the petitioner is only discharging his professional functions and there is no inducement as such made by the petitioner.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that a huge amount of Rs.14,60,000/- was made payment for the conduct of the matter before the Apex Court and on that day, the matter after hearing was only adjourned and no favorable orders was passed. Therefore, offence under Sections 406 and 420 have been committed.
Courts Observation and order
The bench at the very outset taking note of the facts of the case remarked, "In the present matter, allegations have been made by a client against an Advocate alleging that since he did not obtain favourbale orders as contended by him, offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC have been committed. A perusal of the complaint would indicate that the statement attributed to the petitioner is that the petitioner would introduce and or refer the matter to an Advocate in Delhi and also that the petitioner would appear before the Apex Court in a matter of the complainant. An advocate can only appear and make his best efforts in the matter. No advocate can either state or hold out that he would obtain favourable orders nor could a client believe that an Advocate will definitely obtain favourable orders just because he has made payment of the fees to the Advocate."
The bench further remarked, "Just because a client were not to succeed in the matter and favourable orders were not passed in favour of that particular client, the said client cannot make out a case that there is a fraud which has been committed by the Advocate and offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC which has been committed by an Advocate. That would lead to disastrous consequences. It is for all litigants to understand that an Advocate can only make best efforts in the matter and the case would be decided on the basis of merits. In an Adversarial system like that in our Country where one party initiates a litigation against the other it is bound to happen that one will win and other will lose which is on the basis of the facts of the case and the law applicable."
The bench allowing the petition remarked, "Whoever the Advocate may be, the outcome depends on the facts and the law applicable thereto. Hence, the payment of fees, the amount of fees is also not relevant for the outcome of the matter that is a private matter between the client and the Advocate.
In the above background, the allegations now being made that since the huge amount of money has been paid as fees to the Advocate, the Advocate had to obtain favourable orders, it is not sustainable nor would it amount to an offence under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.
No grounds have been made out in the complaint. The criminal proceedings being an abuse in the process of the Court, the petition is allowed."
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments