Lodging FIR After Advocate Is Threatened Upon Appearing For Client Is Not Misuse Of Advocacy: Madhya Pradesh HC

While dismissing a man's plea for quashing an FIR after he was accused of threatening his advocate, the Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court said that advocates do not have any personal interest in their clients case, and so threatening them because they accepted the accused's case amounts to interference in their professional life. 

Hence, registering an FIR for being threatened for representing a client in court cannot be said to be a misuse of advocacy, the court underscored. 

Rejecting the petitioner's contention that FIR lodged against him is a misuse of advocacy Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “If an Advocate is threatened merely because he has accepted a brief on behalf of the accused, then it would certainly amount to interference with the professional life and duties of the Advocate. Generally, Advocates represent the cause of their litigants, and personally, they do not have any interest in the case. Under these circumstances, if an Advocate is threatened merely because he has appeared in a case for his client, then lodging of an FIR for such conduct cannot be said to be a misuse of advocacy.”

In the present case, the respondent No. 2 (complainant advocate) lodged an FIR against petitioner for offences under Sections 294(Obscene acts and songs), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 507 (Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication) of IPC.

The complainant an Advocate by profession and had appeared in a case as counsel for the petitioner. It was alleged that on February 23 petitioner made multiple mobile calls to the complainant/advocate and extended threats to his life, also threatening that he should leave the case. As complainant had become apprehensive, therefore, he did not immediately lodge the report. On March 11 petitioner again threatened that complainant should not appear for accused and also tried to pressurize him for a compromise. On March 19 when complainant was standing in front of SDM Court, the petitioner came to him and insisted that he should leave the case and claimed that he had dealt with many Advocates and complainant would not be in a position to cause any damage to him.

When complainant informed him that he is working as a professional and has nothing personal against the petitioner, then petitioner started abusing him and stated that if he would not leave the case, he would be killed and would be falsely implicated under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; thereafter the complainant moved a complaint and an FIR came to be registered.

Challenging the FIR lodged by complainant, it was submitted by counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was not present on the spot and was in Hospital treating patients, therefore, the FIR is false.

With regard to petitioner's defence of plea of alibi, the court said, “It is required to be proved by leading cogent evidence and it cannot be proved by preponderance of probabilities. It is a disputed question of fact that cannot be adjudicated by the Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Further, the counsel for petitioner had contended that the FIR is nothing but a misuse of advocacy. To this the court replied that Advocates represent the cause of their litigants, and personally, they do not have any interest in the case. Therefore, if an Advocate was threatened for merely representing his client, then lodging of an FIR for such conduct cannot be said to be a misuse of advocacy.

“No case is made out warranting interference as allegations made in FIR do make out a cognizable offence”, the Court said.

The petition was thus, dismissed.

Case Title: Neetesh Sharma Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 36916 Of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 323

Click Here To Read/Download Order