Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court stated that lawyers are an “essential and powerful pillar of judicial adjudicatory process and therefore, their duty towards a client has to be respected by all concerned” while rejecting relief to a woman who was accused of assaulting an Advocate.
The complainant had lodged an FIR against the lawyer’s client in 2014 and was pending trial since then. After its hearing, where the lawyer appeared, the petitioner allegedly abused, misbehaved with, and assaulted her. In 2017, the lawyer lodged an FIR against the woman for threatening, restraining and assaulting her. A trial court framed charges and set aside the Magistrate’s orders discharging the petitioner.
In the petition, the petitioner stated that the FIR was filed because a criminal case was pending trial against the lawyer’s client and the lawyer filed this case to save her client. The Court did not accept this argument and stated that one of the essential principles of legal representation by an Advocate is that they do not allow any personal biases or prejudices to influence or interfere with their professional obligations and their responsibility; “A lawyer representing her client, is only carrying out her duties and she cannot be presumed to have any personal enmity or grudge against the complainant in case she is representing an accused or against an accused, if she is representing the complainant. The lawyers are officers of the Court and should not be presumed to be only defending the party concerned as part of their duty“.
The single-judge bench held that if a finding as sought by the petitioner is allowed, then lawyers will not be able to work or discharge their professional duties without fear. In such instances, even if a person injures or assaults a lawyer, they will seek protection behind a plea that the Advocate lodged a complaint on behalf of their client.
Justice Sharma stated that “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.”
The plea to set aside the order framing charges was dismissed.
Adv. RD Rana and Adv. Jagdish Singh represented the petitioner while Adv. Satish Kumar and Adv. Vipul Chaudhary represented the defendants.
Name of the Case: Dhanpati v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 3101/2019 & CRL.M.A. 12671/2019)
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Click here to access the order.