Delhi High Court Rejects Plea of Woman Accused of Assaulting Lawyer, Recognizes Lawyers' Indispensable Role in Judicial Process
In a recent case of Dhanpati v State, the Delhi High Court emphasized the essential and powerful role of lawyers within the judicial process while refusing relief to a woman accused of assaulting a lawyer. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation, dismissing the petitioner's argument that the lawyer's accusation was driven by a criminal case filed by the petitioner against the lawyer's client.
The single-judge firmly stated, "To hold that the present complaint is false only because it is lodged by a lawyer, who was representing a client against whom the assaulter had lodged a complaint a few years back, will be, to say the least, unreasonable and absurd."
The incident stemmed from an FIR lodged by the lawyer against the petitioner in 2017, alleging threats, restraint, and assault. The trial court subsequently framed charges and set aside the Magistrate's orders discharging the petitioner.
Providing context, the petitioner had filed an FIR against the lawyer's client in 2014, which was still pending trial. Following a hearing related to this FIR, during which the lawyer appeared, the petitioner allegedly abused, misbehaved with, and assaulted the lawyer.
The petitioner argued that the FIR was motivated, contending that the lawyer filed it to protect her client, who was facing a separate criminal case. However, the Court rejected this argument, highlighting that lawyers are bound by fundamental principles of legal representation and should not allow personal biases or prejudices to interfere with their professional obligations.
"A lawyer representing her client is only carrying out her duties, and she cannot be presumed to have any personal enmity or grudge against the complainant in case she is representing an accused or against an accused if she is representing the complainant," added the single-judge. Lawyers, as officers of the Court, should not be presumed to solely defend a party but rather fulfill their responsibilities.
Justice Sharma expressed concern that accepting the petitioner's plea would hinder advocates from working and fulfilling their professional duties without fear. This could potentially allow individuals who assault or injure advocates to seek protection by claiming that the lawyer filed a complaint on behalf of their client.
The Court further emphasized that any complaint should be adjudicated impartially, irrespective of the financial or professional standing of the parties involved. "A person's financial position or profession cannot become a basis for holding that due to their such profession or position, the complaint lodged is false, even if in reality they have been assaulted and injured," the Court asserted.
Consequently, the plea seeking to set aside the order framing charges was dismissed. Advocates RD Rana and Jagdish Singh represented the petitioner, while advocates Satish Kumar and Vipul Chaudhary represented the respondents.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Delhi High Court Plea Woman Assaulting Lawyer Lawyers Essential Pillar Judicial Process Rejected Observation Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Relief Submission Motivated Criminal Case First Information Report (FIR) Charges Magistrate Background Threatening Restraining Assaulting Petitioner Personal Biases Prejudices Professional Obligations Responsibility Fundamental Principles Legal Representation Officers of the Court Fear Impartiality Adjudicated Financial Position Profession False Complaint Dismissed Advocates RD Rana Jagdish Singh Respondents.
