Madras High Court: In a criminal original petition filed by an Advocate/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) to quash the FIR filed against him alleging that he and his client (other accused) has restrained the officials from carrying on with their official duty. N. Anand Venkatesh, J. while quashing the FIR, has said that the accused had expressed himself more strongly to defend the rights of his client, but that by itself should not result in a criminal prosecution against an Advocate. The main intention on the part of the accused was not to prevent the Government officials from performing their function, but an attempt to safeguard the rights of his client.
Background:
The Revenue Inspector gave a complaint to the police that the revenue officials conducted a survey in the subject property on 31-12-2022 for removal of the encroachment made in the Government poramboke land after following the procedure under the Land Encroachment Act. At that point of time, the accused persons came to the spot and picked up a quarrel with the Revenue Inspector. It was further alleged that they restrained the officials from carrying on with their official duty. Thus, an FIR came to be registered for offence under Sections 341 and 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Aggrieved by the same, the accused has approached this Court seeking to quash the FIR.
Analysis:
The Court said that the accused who is a practicing Advocate, to safeguard the interest of his client, has come to the spot and questioned the officials. Unfortunately, the same was taken to cause obstruction from performing the official duty and the accused has also been arrayed as an accused in this case.
The Court remarked that the demeanor of an Advocate will always be different from the demeanor of a layman. Considering the position that he holds and job that he performs, an Advocate in most situations reacts boisterously. This is a character which is developed by an Advocate by virtue of the nature of duty that he performs for his clients. The accused had expressed himself more strongly to defend the rights of his client, but that by itself should not result in a criminal prosecution against an Advocate. The main intention on the part of the accused was not to prevent the Government officials from performing their function, but an attempt to safeguard the rights of his client.
The Court viewed that the continuation of investigation against the accused will result in abuse of process of Court, thus, it quashed the FIR against the accused.
[C. Raja v State, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6182, Order dated 21-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate K.Prabhakaran
For Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor A. Damodaran
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
