No Need For Prosecuting As Advocates Tend To React More Aggressively Due To Nature Of Their Job: Madras HC Quashes FIR Against A Lawyer
|The Madras High Court has observed that the demeanor of advocates is such that they tend to react more aggressively, even outside the Court, due to the nature of their job.
The Court quashed the FIR filed against the advocate and held the Petitioner had strongly defended the rights of his clients. However, this action by itself should not result in a criminal prosecution against the advocate. The Court recognized that lawyers frequently respond boisterously due to the nature of their job.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed, “The demeanor of an Advocate will always be different from the demeanor of a layman. Considering the position that he holds and job that he performs, an Advocate in most of the situations reacts boisterously. This is a character which is developed by an Advocate by virtue of the nature of duty that he performs for his clients. The legal profession involves fighting for the rights of the clients and the Advocate tends to react more aggressively even outside the Courts. It may be true that the petitioner had expressed himself more strongly to defend the rights of his client and that by itself should not result in a criminal prosecution against an Advocate. The main intention on the part of the petitioner was not to prevent the Government officials from performing their function and on the other hand, the petitioner was only attempting to safeguard the rights of his client”.
Advocate K Prabhakaran appeared for the Petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor A Damodaran appeared for the Respondent.
Respondent no 2, a revenue officer, had lodged a complaint for the removal of encroachments on Government poramboke land following the procedure under the Land Encroachment Act (LEA). The Petitioner had filed a pending suit in the District Court. To safeguard their client's interests, the Petitioner went to the spot and questioned the officials. Unfortunately, such action was considered an obstruction to official duty, and the Petitioner was accused. A Petition was filed challenging the FIR lodged by Respondent no 1 (Police) under Sections 341 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court noted that the demeanor of an Advocate differs from that of a layman. Due to their work and responsibilities, Advocates tend to react more vigorously in most situations. The Court observed that such behavior results from the duty they perform for their clients. As Advocates fight for their clients' rights, they may exhibit a more aggressive approach even outside of the courtroom. The Court asserted that while it's true that the Petitioner may have expressed themselves strongly in defending their client's rights, this should not lead to criminal charges against an Advocate. The Court held that the Petitioner's intent was not to obstruct the government officials from performing their duties but to protect their client's rights.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the registered FIR.
Cause Title: C Raja v State