The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a complaint filed against a lawyer by his client under sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) IPC on the allegation that he obtained a favorable order from the Supreme Court in his case. did not do. Case.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj allowed the petition of KS Mahadevan and said,
“A lawyer can only appear and do his best in the matter. No lawyer can say or say that he will receive favorable orders, nor can a client believe that That a lawyer will certainly get a favorable order because he has paid the fees to the lawyer.” The complainant, Cyprian Menezes, in his complaint had alleged that since the petitioner did not receive favorable orders, offenses under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC have been committed.
The bench, after considering the complaint, observed that the statement of the petitioner is that he will present or refer the matter to a lawyer in Delhi and also that the petitioner will appear before the Supreme Court in the matter of the complainant. ,
“Merely because a client was not to succeed in the case and a favorable order was not passed in favor of that particular client, the said client cannot make out the case that there is a fraud which has been committed by the advocate and is not subject to the provisions of section 406. and section 420 of the IPC which is committed by a lawyer. It will have disastrous consequences.”
The bench then expressed that,
It is for all the litigants to understand that a lawyer can only make best efforts in the matter and the case will be decided on merits. In such an adversarial system in our country, where one party initiates a lawsuit against the other, it is bound to happen that one will win and the other will lose which is based on the facts of the case and the applicable law.
Further it said, “Whoever may be an advocate, the outcome depends on the facts and the law applicable to him. Therefore, the fee paid, the amount of the fee also is not relevant to the outcome of the case which is a client.” and a private matter between the advocate.”
It is now being alleged that since a large amount has been paid as fees to the advocate, the advocate had to obtain a favorable order, this is not sustainable nor does it constitute an offense under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. will fall into the category. No. grounds have been made in the complaint. Criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.”
It also quashed the proceedings pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Mangaluru and order of cognizance dated 06.02.2017.
Case Title: KS Mahadevan Vs Cyprian Menezes
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 54069 of 2017
Citation: 2022 Live Law (Tax) 389
Date of Order: 9th day of September, 2022
Written by: KARAN SURI
0 Comments