Jharkhand High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated Against Lawyer On 'Malafide Complaint' By Opposite Party In Litigation

The lawyer challenged the commencement and continuation of the disciplinary inquiry initiated by the Jharkhand State Bar Council through a notice dated August 26, 2023.

Justice Ananda Sen held, “Considering the totality of the matter, I find that this complaint before the Jharkhand State Bar Council has been filed by respondent No. 3 [client's husband] with mala fide, with an intention to wreak vengeance, that too against a professional lawyer, who was defending his client i.e. the wife of the complainant.”

“Further respondent No. 3 has got no locus to lodge the complaint before Jharkhand State Bar Council, when there is no professional relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. This sort of behaviour of respondent No. 3 is absolutely deprecated,” Justice Sen added.

As per the factual matrix of the case, a long standing matrimonial dispute was going on between respondent No. 3 and his wife. Two cases of matrimonial disputes were pending before the trial courts; a divorce case and a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was the lawyer representing the wife before the Civil Courts. On this background, the present complaint was lodged by respondent no. 3 before the Jharkhand State Bar Council praying therein to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the ground that he had shown professional misconduct. Further, it was alleged that the petitioner was trying to extort money from the complainant.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the Bar Council on frivolous allegation and the allegation, which was not at all connected with the professional conduct of the petitioner, entertained the same and initiated a Disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner.

He submitted that even if the allegation levelled, was taken face value and the same was taken to be true - anyone who should have been aggrieved, was the wife of the respondent No. 3 i.e. the client of the petitioner, but surprisingly, she had not made any complaint against the lawyer. Thus, he prayed that the petition be allowed.

While rejecting the prayer for adjournment made by the counsel for the Bar Council, the Court, at the outset, stated that it was mainly on the ground that the Bar Council had initiated a disciplinary enquiry in respect of a complaint made by respondent No. 3 against the petitioner. The Court said that the role of the Bar Council was limited, and they should act as a neutral body and they cannot take side of any of the parties. Thus, the Court stated that they need not be heard on the merit of the case, and the Bar council can only make submissions if their jurisdiction is challenged.

After going through the complaint, the Court opined that it was quite clear that the relationship between the complainant and his wife was bitter and there were Court cases amongst them; and on this ground, the complainant had approached the Jharkhand State Bar Council alleging immoral act of this petitioner with his wife, along with allegation that his wife was extorting money with help of the petitioner.

The Court asserted, “Admittedly, both PD [wife name redacted] and petitioner are major and the allegation of physical relationship has been levelled by the husband, who is not having good term with the wife. Surprisingly, the wife has not filed any complaint. If there was any sexual act or any misconduct committed by the petitioner-Advocate upon PD, PD would have been the only person who could have lodged a complaint.”

“In this case, it is the husband, who is adversary of PD has lodged the complaint. There is no professional relationship between the respondent No. 3 (complainant) and this petitioner, rather it is with the PD who has never lodged any complaint or nor shown any displeasure against this petitioner before any authority, about any conduct, be it professional or other,” the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the complaint filed by respondent No. 3 along with the entire proceeding started by the Disciplinary Committee, Jharkhand State Bar Council against the petitioner.

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: M/s. Sheo Kr. Singh & R.N. Chatterjee, Advocates.

For the Bar Council: Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate

For Respondent No. 3: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

For the Bar Council: Mr. R. Krishna, Chairman

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 5319 of 2023

Case Title: VD v. The Jharkhand State Bar Council

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 21

Click Here To Read/Download Order