No Need To Plead With Folded Hands As It Is Constitutional Right Of Litigant Or A Lawyer To Argue Case Before Court Of Law: Kerala High Court
|The Kerala High Court emphasized that the Petitioner need not plead her case before the Court with folded hands and tears in her eyes as it is the constitutional right of a litigant or a lawyer to argue a case before a court of law
The Court allowed the Petition against a complaint filed by the Inspector of Police for allegedly using abusive words against the Officer over phone calls. The Court held that while the Court of Law is called as Temple of Justice, but no gods are sitting in the bench. The Court held that the judges are fulfilling their constitutional duties and obligations but the litigants and lawyers should also maintain the decorum of the court while arguing the case.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan observed, “First of all, no litigant or lawyer need to argue their case with folded hands before a court of law because it is their constitutional right to argue a case before a court of law. Usually the court of law is known as ‘temple of justice’. But there is no god sitting in the bench. The judges are doing their constitutional duties and obligations. But the litigants and lawyers should keep the decorum of the court while arguing the case”.
Public Prosecutor M.P Prasanth appeared for the Respondent.
Per the complaint, the Complainant (Inspector of Police) was conducting patrol duty when the Petitioner called the complainant and threatened him using abusive words while claiming to be the Circle Inspector of Police. The Petitioner was the sole accused in a case for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act (KPA).
The Court, after carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case, noted that the prima facie case against the Petitioner was not substantiated.
The Court referred to the case of James Jose v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KHC 531] and observed that the use of abusive language over the phone would not attract an offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC.
Furthermore, the Court directed the District Police Chief to conduct an enquiry about the registration of the complaint and if any default is found on the part of the complainant, appropriate steps should be undertaken against him.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and quashed the impugned complaint.
Case Title: Ramla Kabeer v State of Kerala (2023 KER 61647)