Lawyer's Role Is To Resolve Disputes, Not 'Loot' Clients: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Abetment Case Against Advocate

The role of a lawyer in the society is to help an individual by finding out a solution to one's dispute and not to loot their money, observed the Bombay High Court recently while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against a lawyer, who allegedly 'convinced' his client to pay Rs 1.25 lakhs bribe to two police officers so that the client's son could get 'better facilities' in jail. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke refused to quash the FIR lodged under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act against lawyer Sachin Wankhede, a resident of Murtizapur, Akola.The applicant, who is lawyer by profession, is not a “public servant” within the definition of “public servant” given under Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act, the court noted, however, it went on to refer to the Bar Council of India Rules, 1961 and stated, "The legal profession is a challenging one, which is also called as 'noble' and its practitioners are regarded as honourable members. An advocate shall, at all limits, comfort himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of a Bar, or for a member of a bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an Advocate, as per the preamble of Chapter II Part VI of Bar Council of India Rules, 1961."The said preamble further states, the judge added, that without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing obligation, an Advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interest of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules here in after mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules mentioned contains 'cannon of conduct and etiquette' adopted by general guides."Thus, role of a lawyer in the society is basically to help an individual to find the best way to redress a dispute or prevent one from occurring and not to loot their money. There should be a feeling in the mindset of clients that, consulting a lawyer promptly should help them avoid a wide range of problems and reduce financial losses and not otherwise, as is prevalent as on date," Justice Joshi-Phalke said in the order pronounced on March 10.Legal profession, the judge emphasised, is a service-oriented profession and that it should always be remembered that, a Lawyer is a representative of clients or a neutral third party, an Officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. "Though, it is difficult for a Lawyer to protect the interests of their clients in toto, independence is the key for providing unbiased advice and representation to a client. Lawyers must also maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity and fairness towards clients, Court, other lawyers and members of the public, including fulfillment of any undertaking given in the course of their practice," the judge underlined. The observations were made while refusing to quash the FIR lodged at the behest of one Rajesh Khambe, who had engaged Wankhede to defend the case of his son, who was arrested in a rape case. During the trial period, Wankhede, allegedly told Khambe that two of the police officers in the prison had demanded Rs 5 lakhs initially but then later settled for Rs 1.25 lakhs to provide 'better facilities' to Khambe's son in the jail.On Khambe's complaint, the police investigated the case and even got Wankhede's voice sample test done, which matched with the voice recorded by Khambe while he was allegedly convincing him to pay the money. However, the court said that the evidence fell short to establish a case under section 7 (attempt to bribe a public servant) and 15 (punishment for attempting to commit offence) under the PC Act and only found material against him under section 12 (abetting a corruption offence).Justice Joshi-Phalke noted that the voice samples of Wankhede matched with the recorded audio submitted by Khambe and therefore, refused to quash the FIR. The judge further refused to accept the contention that Wankhede and Khambe have 'amicably' settled their dispute."In the light of the said duties casted upon the lawyers who are in noble legal profession from whom utmost integrity and loyalty is expected, the act of the present applicant is not befitting in the said principles," the judge held, while refusing to quash the FIR.With these observations, the petition has been dismissed. Appearance:Advocate Parvez Mirza appeared for the Applicant. Additional Public Prosecutor MA Barabde represented the State. Advocate M Hussain represented the Complainant. Case Title: Sachin Chandramani Wankhede vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1482 of 2025)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 108Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Lawyer's Role Is To Resolve Disputes, Not 'Loot' Clients: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Abetment Case Against Advocate

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Lawyer's Role Is To Resolve Disputes, Not 'Loot' Clients: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Abetment Case Against Advocate

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers