Bhuvana Marni
Published on: October 6, 2022 at 20:38 IST
The Suraj Govindraj, J., Bench ruled that the client’s loss of the case and the Court’s refusal to grant him relief from the judgment do not suffice to prove that the advocate committed fraud.
This was the outcome of the current petition, which aimed to have the Senior Advocate’s complaint dismissed.
The Karnataka High Court rejected a charge brought by a client of an attorney under Sections 406 (Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) IPC because the advocate had failed to obtain favourable decisions from the Supreme Court in the case.
A Single-Judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj allowed the petition filed by K S Mahadevan and said,
“An advocate can only appear and make his best efforts in the matter. No advocate can either state or hold out that he would obtain favourable orders nor could a client believe that an Advocate will definitely obtain favourable orders just because he has made payment of the fees to the Advocate.”
Cyprian Menezes alleged in his complaint that the petitioner “held himself up to be a very Senior Advocate in Bangalore and having ties with Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court.”
Additionally, he said that the petitioner will introduce or submit the complainant’s matter to an attorney in Delhi so that the complainant may be represented before the Supreme Court.
Consequently, offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC had been committed since the petitioner did not get favourable verdicts. The matter was merely postponed by the Supreme Court after the hearing, though.
The court read the complaint and noted the declaration made by the petitioner that he would introduce and/or refer the case to an advocate in Delhi and that he would also appear before the Supreme Court in the complainant’s case.
The complainant/attorney respondents said that despite having paid a sizeable sum of money—Rs. 14,60,000. The matter was postponed after the hearing to have the case considered by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the petitioner’s attorney argued that the petitioner just carried out his obligations as an advocate and appeared in the case before the Supreme Court with other attorneys.
It was further maintained that the decisions about any orders made by the Supreme Court or any other Court were solely up to the Courts and that an advocate could only attempt to get favourable rulings; thus could not be considered an offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code 1860.
The petitioner wasn’t offering any sort of enticement; he was simply performing his professional duties.
The bench opined that, “Whoever the Advocate may be, the outcome depends on the facts and the law applicable thereto. Hence, the payment of fees, the amount of fees is also not relevant for the outcome of the matter that is a private matter between the client and the Advocate.”
Accordingly, it held,
“The allegations now being made that since the huge amount of money has been paid as fees to the Advocate, the Advocate had to obtain favourable orders, it is not sustainable nor would it amount to an offence under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.”
“No grounds have been made out in the complaint. The criminal proceedings being an abuse in the process of the Court.”
Case Title: K.S. Mahadevan vs. Cyprian Menezes, WP No. 54069 of 2017
