Advocate Casting Aspersions On Woman's Character Upon Instructions From Client Is Discharging His Duty, Not Insulting Her Modesty: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court recently held that an advocate, when casts aspersions upon a woman's character, on instructions from his client, is basically discharging his duty and thus cannot be booked for insulting the modesty of the woman punishable under section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande delivered the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against one Ratnadeep Ram Patil, who was booked for insulting a woman by making personal allegations against her.

In his defence, Patil contended that he had instructions by his client to make those allegations against the woman, who was one of the complainants in the case, in which Patil's client was arrested. He argued that since he was discharging his duty to defend his client's remand, he made those allegations on instructions.

Accepting the contentions, the judges, concluded that Patil did not have any intention to insult the woman in question but he only acted as per the instructions given to him by his client.

"Since we find that there was no intention on part of the Petitioner to insult her modesty, as he was only discharging his duty of defending his clients in the remand proceedings and even if he had cast aspersions upon her character, since they were based on the instructions received from his clients, which has reference in the complaint made on-line and its receipt in the police station is not denied, we deem it appropriate to extend the privilege of an Advocate to the present Petitioner and more so, what we find is, the statement is not unconnected to the case, as it is the case of his client that by using the pressure tactics, they were being coerced to pay the money," reads the December 9, judgment authored by Justice Dangre.

Notably, Patil's client had in March 2024, made an online complaint against the complainant woman in the instant case, accusing her of using her 'personal contact' with one of the cops and pressuring him to pay the alleged due amounts. Patil's client was booked in a case on a complaint filed by the woman in the instant case, along with other complainants, that they duped them of Rs 2.74 crores.

The court in its order, noted that in her complaint before a Magistrate, the woman mentioned only the fact that Patil made some personal allegations against her and referred to her and the other complainant woman as “चांडाळ चौकडी" (group of miscreants). But in the FIR that she lodged on the same day with the Panvel Police, the judges noted that she had detailed her statement that the petitioner accused her of having a love affair or an illicit relationship with one of the police officers, who was probing the case against Patil's client.

"It is highly unbelievable that a woman, who is aggrieved by the unjustified comment made against her, when approached the Court, failed to refer the said utterance. But, immediately when she approached the police station in the evening, accompanied by her lawyer, she specifically make this assertion by stating that the Petitioner had accused her of having a love affair with police officer and with his aid, has conspired to implicate the accused persons," the judges opined.

Further, while referring to a few judgments on pthe rosecution of advocates, the bench observed, that it is a settled principle of law that right to free speech is not an absolute right. "The privilege conferred upon an Advocate definitely is restricted to the purpose of judicial proceedings in which he is cast with a duty to advance his submission or make such statement, which is relatable to the subject matter of the proceedings," the bench maintained.

With these observations, the judges quashed the FIR.

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite along with Advocates Saurabh Butala, Harshad Sathe, Manvi Sharma, Siddhesh Bane and Shubham Gangan appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocate Shazia Bano Mohammad Shoeb appeared for the Complainant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sharmila Kaushik represented the State.

Case Title: Ratnadeep Ram Patil vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 3858 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment