Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Cheating Case Against Advocate Over Taking Money From Client Promising Favourable Outcome

The Supreme Court validated the quashing of a criminal case involving a lawyer accused of professional misconduct, including false promises and financial fraud, which allegedly resulted in a client's suicide attempt.

It was the case where a client lodged an FIR against his advocate, alleging professional misconduct and fraud. The client claimed the advocate guaranteed favorable litigation outcomes in a civil suit and received substantial cash payments.  It was also alleged that after the advocate purchased the client's land, he did not pay Rs. 86.45 lakhs which was remaining in the sale consideration. This financial loss and the advocate's refusal to pay caused the client significant distress, leading to a suicide attempt.

A case was registered against an advocate for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”). Consequently, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 420, 323, 506 & 109 of the IPC.

The High Court came to the conclusion that no offence was actually made and quashed the said proceedings as there was only promise to do something and moreover, from the allegations recorded in the FIR itself technically no case was made out.

“Wrong advise or alleged promise of favourable outcome in litigation being a promise given for illegal purpose and against public policy, is no promise which is enforceable in law, and therefore, would not be an inducement made for delivery of property and hence, would not be cheating within the meaning of Section 415 of IPC.”, the High Court held.

Aggrieved by the Bombay High Court's decision quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused, the Appellant-client approached the Supreme Court.

Declining to interfere with the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran noted:

“we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court's refusal to interfere with the High Court's decision was in tune with a settled proposition of law that a mere breach of promise doesn't amount to cheating (Section 420 IPC) unless there was dishonest intention from inception.

Case Title: CHANDRASEKHAR RAMESH GALANDE VERSUS SATISH GAJANAN MULIK & ANR.

Click here to read/download the order