Karnataka high court quashes case registered against advocate for receiving his client’s call during a fight

Karnataka high court recently quashed an FIR registered against an advocate for receiving his client’s distress call, urging his help in an incident where individuals had fought each other in connection with a cheating case.

Advocate Mayur Bhanu from Rajajinagar approached the high court stating an FIR registered with RT Nagar police this May contained his name as accused number four. The complaint was the result of a failed monetary business between two individuals, and Bhanu had received his client’s phone call during one meeting with the other party. For the same reason, his name was included in the FIR, Bhanu contended.

The FIR was registered in May this year by Shrenik Chandrashekhar, accusing Gaurav NJ, a client of advocate Bhanu, of cheating him of Rs 9.4 lakh on the pretext of doubling the investment. Shrenik visited Gaurav’s house on Feb 3 this year, demanding his money back. Shrenik claimed in his complaint that Gaurav, his father, Janardhan, along with Bharat and Mayur allegedly issued dire threats. Police then booked Gaurav, Janardhan, Bharat and Mayur Bhanu under sections 318 (cheating) and 351 (criminal intimidation) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

In Feb this year, the prime accused, Gaurav, had filed a complaint against complainant Shrenik for assaulting him with a metal knuckle buster.

And the fresh complaint against Bhanu and others was registered after a period of two months from the first case.

Bhanu’s counsel contended that Bhanu’s implication in the crime is nothing but a collateral consequence of his professional engagement as an advocate. “Gaurav, a client of Bhanu, had attempted to contact him over telephone seeking legal assistance. Even this innocuous act did not fructify, as Gaurav’s opposite parties allegedly intercepted the call and proceeded to hurl abuses not only at Gaurav but also at Bhanu, merely because Gaurav had contacted him for legal assistance. The episode culminated there and then,” the counsel contended.

The special public prosecutor appearing for the state admitted before the court that there was nothing beyond the telephonic conversation between Bhanu and others and, therefore, he would leave the decision to the court.

Quashing the FIR against Bhanu, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed: “This court has of late witnessed an increasing and disturbing trend where advocates, merely because they discharge their professional obligations in representing litigants or legally assisting them, are sought to be implicated in criminal proceedings. Their only perceived offence is that they stood beside their clients, articulated their cause before judicial forums and performed the duties which the legal profession demands of them. Such attempts strike at the very independence of the Bar, an institution that forms one of the indispensable pillars sustaining the administration of justice. So long as the advocate acts within the bounds of law and professional ethics, his or her conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his representation or advice displeases the adversary. If criminal prosecution becomes the inevitable consequence of fearless advocacy, the legal profession itself would be reduced to one of apprehension rather than independence. The majesty of the bar cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants wielding the criminal process as a weapon of retaliation or intimidation against officers of the court.”

Source: The Times of India