Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 27 To July 3, 2022

Nominal Index Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 197 Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 198 Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 199 Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. Staff Selection Board, Jaipur & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 200 Puneet Mohnot v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 201 Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202 Gurjant Singh v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 203 Judgments Orders of the Week 1. No Criminal Action Against Advocate If Legal Advice Goes Wrong, Liable For Professional Misconduct If Established By Cogent Evidence: Rajasthan HC Case Title: Gopi Kishan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp with connected matter Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 197 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that if any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. At most, he may be held liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing cogent evidence on record. Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed, " If any legal advice rendered by an Advocate goes wrong, the same would not subject him to criminal prosecution, as a lawyer. As observed above, an Advocate, at the most, may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct, if it is established by placing a cogent evidence on record, but an Advocate cannot be charged for the offences, as alleged herein, alongwith other conspirators." The Bench was of the view that if an Advocate is prosecuted merely for rendering a legal advice/opinion, it shall not be possible for any lawyer to render such professional advice, more particularly, when such a professional advice, if found to be non favourable for the client, the same would result into criminal prosecution against a lawyer, and in such circumstances, the system of justice delivery would suffer, as lawyers being an important component of the justice delivery system would not be able to give their professional advice without fear and favour. 2. "Placement Of Statues & Free Flow Of Traffic Are Matters Looked Into By State": Rajasthan HC Disposes PIL For Removal Of BR Ambedkar Statue Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 198 While hearing a PIL for removal of statue of Shri Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar allegedly causing obstruction, the Rajasthan High Court recently observed that the placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the court. The court opined that the petitioners have chosen only a particular spot in the city rather than coming out with general prayer for removal of unauthorised statues in the city. The court remarked that the petition appears to be only for personal interest, not for public interest. Further, the court directed the Local Body concerned to decide the issue as soon as possible. Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while disposing the petition, observed, "The Local Body concerned should decide the issue as soon as possible. The placement of the statue and free flow of the traffic both are matters, which can be looked into by the authorities and not by the Court. In view of above, we direct the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Jaipur to examine the whole matter afresh after going through the material on record and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as early as possible." 3. Protection Plea: Rajasthan High Court Permits Police To Charge Married Couple If It Has Adequate Income Case Title: Pooja Gurjar & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 199 While hearing a protection petition filed by a married couple, the vacation bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that if the petitioner's income is more than taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Superintendent of Police after considering the financial aspect may charge appropriate financial charges from them. Essentially, the petitioners got married on 22.03.2022. However, this marriage was not approved by their relatives and respondents No. 4 to 14 and fearing them, they had filed a petition seeking police protection at their residence and place of work. The court asked the petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and added that it would be the duty of the said authority to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners, for which he may take such suitable measures as found necessary in accordance with law. 4. Court Can't Dictate Exam Dates: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Interfere With Lab Assistant...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 27 To July 3, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags