Punjab & Haryana High Court Pulls Up Advocate For Claiming That He 'Made' Many Judges; Doubles Cost [Read Order]
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday pulled up an Advocate for claiming that he 'made' many judges and doubled the cost imposed on him while dismissing his petition. Taking note of Advocate Sushil Gautam's "boisterous claims", the Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga said, "To say the least, the tone, tenor, manner and conduct of the learned counsel for petitioner leaves a lot...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday pulled up an Advocate for claiming that he 'made' many judges and doubled the cost imposed on him while dismissing his petition.
Taking note of Advocate Sushil Gautam's "boisterous claims", the Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga said,
"To say the least, the tone, tenor, manner and conduct of the learned counsel for petitioner leaves a lot to desire. Yet, taking a lenient view thereof, this court rather prefers a self-restraint from taking any further action. However, on the invitation of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cost imposed is enhanced to Rs.1 lac."
On dismissal of his case with costs for concealment of facts, the Advocate had very "rowdily exuberated" before the High Court that paying costs is not an issue.
He also claimed that he had been instrumental in making "many Judges" and how can his arguments/ contentions, therefore, be rejected by the Court.
The claims were made in a petition filed against refusal of the Police to register an FIR in connection to alleged fraudulent activities committed by the Swami Vivakananda Educational and Charitable Trust.
The plea was dismissed after the Court was informed that the entire matter was already sub-judice before Civil Court as the petitioner had already filed two civil suits in this regard.
The Court opined that no satisfactory response had come from the Petitioner as to why he had concealed full facts of the case. It said,
"In any case, conduct of the petitioner for indulging in subtle concealment, as aforesaid, does not inspire any confidence so as to exercise any jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
The Court was also of a prima facie view that the lis is of civil in nature and institution of criminal proceedings was sought for collateral pressure and for settling private scores/gains.
It further said that if the Petitioner wanted to file a criminal case, the correct procedure was to first approach the Trial Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for redressal of his grievance, if any, before directly approaching the High Court.
In view of these facts, the petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in Covid-19 fund created by U.T. Administration, Chandigarh.
This is when the Advocate went rowdy and made the aforementioned 'boisterous claims', which prompted the Court to enhance the cost.
Read Order