Advocate’s Boisterous Defense Deemed Justified: Madras High Court Quashes FIR

138
0
Share:
assets temple temples principles tax child Harassment property Duty Bank's vehicle woman property electricity Age police Husband god health breakdown 438 labor 148 jai illegal gift death vehicles advocate love performance wife illegal motor

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court has drawn a clear distinction between the actions of an advocate and a layperson, deeming an advocate’s boisterous defense as justified. The case in question involved a practicing advocate, C. Raja, who had been charged under Sections 341 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for questioning revenue officials during an encroachment removal operation.

The Honorable Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the case, observed that the demeanor of an advocate is naturally different from that of a layman. Advocates, due to the nature of their profession, often react more assertively, especially when defending the rights of their clients. The court noted, “The legal profession involves fighting for the rights of the clients, and the advocate tends to react more aggressively even outside the courts.”

In this specific incident, it was found that the advocate’s main intention was not to obstruct the government officials in carrying out their duties. Instead, he was attempting to safeguard the rights of his client, who was also involved in a pending legal matter. The court further emphasized that such actions by an advocate should not lead to criminal prosecution.

Madras High Court quashed the FIR (First Information Report) in Crime No.2 of 2023 against the petitioner, C. Raja, considering it an abuse of the court process to continue the investigation against him. The judgment, delivered on September 21, 2023, has provided clarity on the role and demeanor of advocates in situations where they are defending their clients’ interests.

This decision reaffirms the importance of understanding the unique position and responsibilities of advocates within the legal system, ensuring that their actions in pursuit of their clients’ rights are not misconstrued as criminal conduct.

 Date of Decision: 21.09.2023

C.Raja  vs .State rep. by, The Sub Inspector of Police

Download Judgment

Share: