Counsel Owe Duty To Argue Responsibly & Not For The Gallery, Can't Treat Court As Playground: MP High Court Imposes ₹1.5 Lakhs Cost

Imposing an exemplary cost of Rs 1.5 lakh on all parties in a Section 482 Cr. P.C Petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court highlighted that advocates appearing for the parties owed a duty to the court to 'argue responsibly'.The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar reprimanded the counsel for the petitioner and objectors for arguing the entire disputed facts in a plea for quashing the FIR, as if in a writ petition, by placing on record scores of documents that do not form a part of the charge sheet. The court felt that the counsels are 'treating the courts as their playground' in the backdrop of a fierce legal battle over the ancestral property that's ongoing between the petitioner and the objectors.“…Although, the petitioner was entitled to file the petition for quashing the FIR, however, from the scores of documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner, which do not form the part of the charge-sheet, and the leisurely manner in which the entire matter has been argued by the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the counsel also owe a duty to the court to argue responsibly and not for the gallery”, the bench sitting at Indore accordingly noted.The court also found that the counsel appearing for the complainant/tenant/ respondent no.2 in the Section 482 application is the same counsel for the petitioner and other objectors in the eviction suit filed against respondent no.2 himself. Hence, the court inferred that respondent no.2 is a 'sponsored objector' on behalf of other objectors.The counsels had argued on the status of the petitioner in the house, the validity of the decree against respondent no. 2 and the effect of the eviction suit preferred by the legal heirs(objectors) of the deceased brother of the petitioner. The court said that such aspects cannot be looked into in a petition filed for quashing the FIR under Section 482.In January 2021, an FIR was filed against the petitioner at the instance of respondent no.2 for breaking into his shop, taking illegal possession of the room and stealing certain articles despite a court order prohibiting any interference by the former. Respondent No.2 was allegedly the ex-tenant of the petitioner. The FIR was registered with a delay of over 3 months for offences under Sections 380 and 454 of the IPC. According to respondent no.2/complainant, the court had already granted an injunction order directing the parties to maintain the status quo in the eviction suit filed by one of the other landlords and others.After the FIR was registered against the petitioner, he obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court in 2021, despite the objections raised by the complainant as well as the legal heirs of the petitioner's deceased brother(objectors). In the current application under Section 482 CrPC, the court noted that all the concerned parties have brought on record an endless list of documents pertaining to their property disputes even though the scope of adjudication herein is limited.The court noted that it cannot conclude that the FIR is liable to be quashed solely based on a bare reading of the same. Pertinently, the counsel for the petitioner had earlier insisted that he would argue the matter and demonstrate that the FIR is liable to be quashed, even in the absence of the case diary.“…Thus, the petition is hereby dismissed with liberty to all the parties concerned, to raise all the grounds available under law before the trial court”, the court held.It stated that the cost of Rs 1.5 lakhs should be paid by the two objectors who are legal heirs of the petitioner's brother, respondent no.2 and the petitioner jointly.“…. As such, this case has the unique distinction of imposition of costs on all the parties involved”, the court remarked.The court directed that each of such parties should deposit Rs 50,000/- in the account of 'President and Secretary H.C. Employees Union' within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.Case Title: Girish Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 13185 of 2021Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 73Click Here To Read/Download Order

Counsel Owe Duty To Argue Responsibly & Not For The Gallery, Can't Treat Court As Playground: MP High Court Imposes ₹1.5 Lakhs Cost

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Counsel Owe Duty To Argue Responsibly & Not For The Gallery, Can't Treat Court As Playground: MP High Court Imposes ₹1.5 Lakhs Cost

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers