AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned advocates for the parties.
The prayer in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to quash and set aside the complaint being Criminal Case No.1295 of 2012 lodged before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ankleshwar. Mr.Utpal Panchal, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to certain facts which are necessary to be referred to. That the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the brother of petitioner nos.3 to 5 met with a fatal accident and the petitioners filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No.71 of 2000 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharuch, through respondent no.2, an advocate to represent the case on their behalf. The case was filed on 25.1.2000 and it is the case of the petitioners that time and again inquiry was made about the outcome of the case and upon verification of record, it was found that respondent no.2 was not remaining present during the proceedings of the case before the concerned Tribunal. It was decided to engage another advocate and notices were issued accordingly. However, the present proceedings are filed for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC by respondent no.2 on the ground that as per the agreement and understanding arrived between respondent no.2 and the petitioners, professional fees of respondent no.2 remained unpaid and thus there was a breach of trust. Shri Panchal, learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed into service a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mr. ''G'' A Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 SC 557, in which it was held that agreement by advocate to share the result of the litigation amounts to professional misconduct. Otherwise also, according to Shri Panchal, averments made in the complaint do not reveal or reflect ingredients of the
offences under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC and the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside as it is nothing but an abuse of process of law as the petitioners-claimants have undergone the agony of fatal accident of their son and brother.
As against above, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has made feeble attack to defend the complaint on the ground that all expenses were incurred by respondent no.2 initially, and baring certain circumstances exceptional in nature, he had attended the proceedings of the Tribunal and non-payment of professional fees would amount to breach of trust and ingredients of offences are attracted and accordingly the petition deserves to be rejected.
Having considered rival submissions, record of the case and particularly the impugned complaint and proceedings, it is needless to say that advocate undertaking professional assignment for conducting the case on behalf of the client is barred by law in entering into any agreement to share the result or outcome of the litigation. In addition to the above, as observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment in the case of Mr. ''G'' A Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court (supra), that an advocate is bound to conduct himself in a manner befitting the high and honourable profession to whose privileges he has so long been admitted; and if he departs from the high standards which that profession has set for itself and demands of him in professional matters, he is liable to disciplinary action.
Without commenting any further, I find merit in the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioners about the abuse of process of law at the behest of respondent no.2 for which the claimants of the compensation and the petitioners herein cannot be subjected to rigmarole of a Criminal Case to be tried by the competent Court and keeping remedies open for the petitioners to take action in accordance with law against respondent no.2 as well as for respondent no.2 regarding unpaid amount, if any, by the petitioners in accordance with law, this petition is allowed. Impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.1295 of 2012 filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ankleshwar is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.