No Intention On His Part To Insult Her Modesty: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Advocate
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR against an Advocate who was accused of insulting modesty of a woman.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Writ Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said, “In any case, 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 Bench remarked that, 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 said utterance.
Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite, Advocates Saurabh Butala, and Harshad Sathe appeared for the Petitioner while APP Sharmila S. Kaushik and Advocate Shazia Bano appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts -
An FIR was registered based on the Complaint alleging that by giving false promise of handsome returns, the accused persons collected huge sum of money and cheated the Complainant and others. It was alleged that collectively the victims were duped in the sum of Rs. 2,74,87,047.20 and it was alleged that the amount was misappropriated by preparing forged documents. Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were invoked against the four accused persons and it was alleged that the amount was transferred to the accused through cheques, on-line transfer and some amount was also paid in cash. In connection with the said offence, the accused was arrested and the services of the Petitioner were engaged by her to represent her in the remand proceedings.
During the hearing, respective husbands of the Respondents were present in the Court and it was alleged that, feeling annoyed and disparaged by the accusations levelled, the Respondent No.2 immediately preferred an Application before the JMFC, where she referred herself as the Complainant and informed the Court that the lawyer of the accused (the Petitioner) levelled personal accusations against her, which do not fit into the four corners of law and the allegations were baseless and infringed her Right to Privacy. The Application categorically stated that the Advocate representing the accused referred to them as “चांडाळ चौकडी" and furnished personal information without any proof thereof to mislead the Court. She, therefore, described the behaviour of the Advocate as discourteous and requested for appropriate action.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “… 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 Court added that the Complaint before the Magistrate, preferred immediately upon the incident having occurred, contains no reference to anything alleged to have been said by the Petitioner about her alleged connect with the police officer.
“Even in the affidavit, which the Respondent No.2 has affirmed, we find an exaggerated version, as she has stated that the Advocate was telling the Court in Marathi that the complainant was threatening and harassing his clients and then she heard her name and it was told to the Court that she had illicit relations with a police officer and this was repeated by the Petitioner three to four times in loud voice and everybody could hear what he had said. Her husband and other relatives were present in the Court and they also heard the same and she felt embarrassed and ashamed and started crying in the Court”, it further noted.
The Court said that the variance in the Complaint preferred before the Magistrate and to the Police Station, creates a doubt about its authenticity.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the FIR against the Petitioner.
Cause Title- Ratnadeep Ram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:48668-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite, Advocates Saurabh Butala, Harshad Sathe, Manvi Sharma, Siddhesh Bane, and Shubham Gangan.
Respondents: APP Sharmila S. Kaushik and Advocate Shazia Bano.
