The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR filed against an advocate, reaffirming the professional privileges afforded to legal practitioners. The court highlighted that advocates following a client’s instructions during judicial proceedings cannot be automatically accused of insulting modesty unless there is clear evidence of malicious intent.
The judgment, delivered by a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3858 of 2024, emphasized that allegations made during legal representation are protected under the law, provided they are devoid of malice.
Case Background
The case stemmed from a remand hearing where an advocate, representing an accused in a fraud case, referenced prior allegations from the accused’s family. These statements implied that another party in the case had used their influence over a police officer to intimidate the accused’s family. Subsequently, a complainant alleged that the advocate’s remarks insulted her modesty by insinuating an illicit relationship, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Parvel City Police Station.
Key Legal Issues
1. Advocates' Professional Privileges:
The court examined whether advocates could be held criminally liable for statements made in court while representing their clients.
2. Intent to Insult Modesty:
Section 79 of the BNS, akin to Section 509 of the IPC, necessitates clear evidence of intent to insult modesty. The court analyzed whether such intent was present in this case.
3. Advocates' Duty vs. Malice:
The court assessed whether the advocate’s remarks, made on client instructions, were malicious or merely part of legitimate legal representation.
Court’s Observations
No Malicious Intent:
The court noted that the advocate’s statements, though potentially offensive, lacked intent to insult the complainant’s modesty. They were made in the context of defending the client and were based on instructions received.
Protection for Advocates:
Highlighting the importance of professional privileges, the bench stated, “Casting aspersions upon an advocate without evidence of malice undermines the sanctity of their professional role in upholding justice.”
Doubts Over Allegations:
The court pointed out discrepancies in the complainant’s account. Her initial application to the Magistrate made no mention of the alleged remarks, which surfaced only later in her police complaint, raising questions about the allegations’ credibility.
Context-Specific Justice:
Referring to legal precedents, the bench reiterated that proving intent is crucial in cases involving modesty. It stressed the need for a balanced approach to ensure justice is fair and considers the broader context of judicial proceedings.
Verdict
The court ruled that the allegations were insufficient to establish criminal intent on the advocate’s part. It observed that the remarks were part of the advocate’s professional duty to defend the client and did not amount to a deliberate insult. Quashing the FIR, the bench concluded that its registration was an abuse of legal process.
This judgment not only reinforces the professional immunity of advocates in the discharge of their duties but also underscores the need for caution when alleging criminal intent in judicial proceedings.
