Exoneration In Bar Council Disciplinary Proceedings No Ground To Quash Legitimate Criminal Case : Allahabad High Court

The Bench comprising Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari observed that criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are distinct and can run simultaneously as they have different objectives, procedures and standards of proof

The observation was made while the Court was hearing an application filed under Section 482 CrPC by Yogesh Kumar Bhentwal, an advocate by profession, seeking to quash a summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, in a case registered under Section 420 IPC.

Case in brief

In August 2012, a complaint was filed by one Mahavir Singh (Opposite Party No.2) under Section 35 Advocates Act, 1961 alleging that the applicant-advocate had committed fraud by taking an amount of Rs. 6,36,000 as fees while assuring a favorable order.

In February 2014, the disciplinary committee passed an ex-parte order allowing the application and awarded a punishment of suspension for five years to the applicant and debarred him from practicing before the court of law in India.

However, this order and complaint was set aside and dismissed in October 2014 in the recall plea moved by the applicant.

Later, OP no 2 filed a complaint against the applicant before the court of CJM, Ghaziabad, which was registered as Complaint Case under Section 420 IPC. On the said complaint, a summoning order was also passed in 2017 by the court concerned.

Arguments

Challenging the proceedings in the complaint case, the applicant moved the HC contending that since the Disciplinary Committee had dismissed the complaint and effectively exonerated him, the subsequent criminal complaint initiated on the same facts was malicious and an abuse of the process of the Court.

It was argued that the present case is "civil in nature" and was instituted at the behest of corrupt employees of the Tehsil court against whom the applicant had raised objections.

The AGA, on the other hand, opposed the prayer to set aside the summoning order by contending that there is material evidence on record to proceed with the trial

High Court's order

Dismissing the arguments of the applicant, Justice Tiwari emphasized that an 'acquittal' in a disciplinary proceeding is not automatically a ground to quash a criminal proceeding.

The Court noted:

"Criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are distinct and can run simultaneously as they have different objectives, procedures, and standards of proof. A disciplinary proceeding under the Advocates Act is quasi-criminal in nature and aimed at maintaining the dignity and ethics of the legal profession."

The Court further clarified that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (and Section 528 BNSS where applicable) is to be exercised in specific and rare circumstances.

"Therefore, an acquittal in a Bar Council disciplinary matter is not, by itself, one of the established grounds for quashing a legitimate criminal case," the Court ruled.

The High Court also observed that the submissions relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court further noted that the argument regarding the case being "civil in nature" cannot be a ground to quash the entire proceedings when, prima facie, the ingredients to constitute the offence are present.

Finding that the summoning order was passed well within the purview of law after considering the statements of the complainant and witnesses, the Court rejected the petition.