Lawyer’s Complaint Alleging Injury Can’t Be Disregarded Merely Because He Knows How To Draft It: Delhi High Court

Denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of causing hurt to an individual by hitting his head with an iron rod, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that merely because the complainant is a lawyer by profession, his complaint cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that he knows how to draft it.

“The same would imply that an injured person who has his or her complaint prepared by a lawyer will be at better footing, than a lawyer himself who has suffered injuries on the vital part of the body,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said in the order.

The FIR was registered under Sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint) Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court denied anticipatory bail to one Sawan, owner of a chicken shop, after the lawyer filed a complaint against him and another individual over a fight related to the issue of weight of chicken purchased by him. It was alleged that the complainant and his cousin were threatened by the accused persons.

It was the prosecution’s case that when the complainant rushed to save his brother, Sawan caught hold of him and the co-accused Salman hit his head with an iron rod.

The counsel appearing for Sawan submitted that since the complainant was a lawyer, he was well aware about the nuances of writing a complaint and thus, had twisted the facts mentioned in it. It was also contended that the police had lodged a false complaint in the matter.

The court refused to accept the submission and said that a person’s profession of being an advocate cannot be held against him.

“If a person has a position of authority or skill and he is able to help others, then in his own case, his own skill, profession or position of authority cannot work to his disadvantage,” Justice Sharma said.

Furthermore, the court noted that the injury was inflicted with an iron rod on the left frontal forehead of the complainant lawyer and that the wound had to be fixed with six stitches above left eye on his forehead.

“The iron rod used in the commission of offence is yet to be recovered, and the investigation in the present case is at initial stage. The fact that the complainant had been hit on the vital part of his body and had received six stitches point out towards gravity of the offence,” the court said.

It added: “In view thereof, at this stage, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of accused/applicant. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.”

Title: SAWAN v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 302

Click Here To Read Judgment