Bombay High Court quashes FIR against lawyer booked for arguments about woman's character

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) registered against a lawyer who was booked for his arguments in court questioning a woman's character [Ratnadeep Patil v State of Maharashtra]..The Court held that when an advocate makes statements during court proceedings questioning a woman's character based on his client's instructions, he is simply fulfilling his role in the judicial process and cannot be charged for outraging the woman's modestyA Bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande clarified that an advocate’s statements, even if they cast aspersions on someone's character, are protected under the privilege conferred upon advocates in the course of judicial proceedings. It further emphasized that in the present case, the advocate had no intention of insulting the complainant's modesty since he was merely acting on the instructions of 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," the Court said. .The case arose in July 2024 when Vaishali Koli, an accused in a cheating case, was arrested and brought before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Panvel. During the remand proceedings, advocate Ratnadeep Ram Patil, representing Koli, made allegations against the informant and her husband, stating that they had threatened his client and were involved in an illicit relationship with a police officer. .She filed a complaint before the magistrate accusing the advocate's statements of being insulting. However, she did not initially refer to the allegation of the illicit relationship.However, when she later approached the police station with her lawyer, she specifically mentioned the allegation made by Patil about the illicit relationship with a police officer. Patil was booked under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for outraging modesty of woman. He then approached the High Court to quash the case.The complainant argued that the advocate’s comments were intentional and insulting.On the other hand, Patil contended that they were made in good faith, based on his client’s instructions. He relied on the decision in Navin Parekh Vs Madhubala Shridhar Sharma in which it was held that an advocate’s privilege extends to statements made in judicial proceedings, provided they relate to the subject matter of the case.The Court noted the inconsistency in her complaint to the magistrate and and the FIR registered based on her complaint to the police."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 made this assertion by stating that the petitioner had accused her of having a love affair with a police officer and with his aid, has conspired to implicate the accused persons."The Court also took into account the principle that an advocate’s privilege protects statements made during judicial proceedings, provided they are relevant to the case.In view of the above, it quashed the case..Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite 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 S Kaushik appeared for the State..[Read Order]