Advocates Tend To React Aggressively Due To Profession, Shouldn't Be Prosecuted For It: Madras HC Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Obstructing Survey

“It may be true that the petitioner had expressed himself more strongly to defend the rights of his client and that by itself should not result in a criminal prosecution against an Advocate. The main intention on the part of the petitioner was not to prevent the Government officials from performing their function and on the other hand, the petitioner was only attempting to safeguard the rights of his client (A1),” the court said.

Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that since the legal profession involves fighting for client’s rights, Advocates usually tend to act more aggressively even outside courts. He added that the demeanour of an advocate was always different from that of a layman due to the nature of his work which requires him to react to situations boisteriously.

“The demeanor of an Advocate will always be different from the demeanor of a layman. Considering the position that he holds and job that he performs, an Advocate in most of the situations reacts boisterously. This is a character which is developed by an Advocate by virtue of the nature of duty that he performs for his clients. The legal profession involves fighting for the rights of the clients and the Advocate tends to react more aggressively even outside the Courts,” the court added.

In the present case, the Revenue Inspector had initiated the complaint the advocate and his client picked up a quarrel with him when he conducted a survey in the subject property for removal of encroachment made in the Government poramboke land after following the procedure under the Land Encroachment Act. Since the accused persons had restrained the officials from carrying on their official duty, an FIR was filed for offences under Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint) and Section 353 IPC (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging duty).

The petitioner-advocate argued that he had filed a suit on behalf of his client in the District Munsiff Court, Mettur and he had questioned the officials only to safeguard his client’s interest.

The court noted that continuation of the investigation was only an abuse of process of law and thus, quashed the FIR against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.K.Prabhakaran

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 279

Case Title: C Raja v State and Others

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.19420 of 2023

Click here to read/download the judgment