Client cannot file cheating case against advocate merely because court passed unfavourable order: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that a client cannot file a fraud or cheating case against his advocate merely because the court before which the lawyer appeared on behalf of the client, did not pass a favourable order [KS Mahadevan v Cyprian Menezes & Anr]..The Court said that litigants should understand that an advocate can only make best efforts in a matter and the case would be decided on the basis of merits.Single-judge Justice Suraj Govindaraj, therefore, quashed a cheating case filed against petitioner advocate KS Mahadevan."Merely because a client were not to succeed in the matter and favourable orders were not passed in favour of that particular client, the said client cannot make out a case that there is a fraud which has been committed by the advocate and offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC which has been committed by an advocate," the Court said..Further, holding that such practice would lead to disastrous consequences, the court said,"It is for all litigants to understand that an advocate can only make best efforts in the matter and the case would be decided on the basis of merits. In a adversarial system like that in our country were one party initiates a litigation against the other it is bound to happen that one will win and other will lose which is on the basis of the facts of the case and the law applicable.".The complainants in the present plea alleged that the petitioner held out himself to be a very Senior Advocate in Bangalore having connections with Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court. It was alleged that he had represented that he could put across the complainant to such Senior Advocates who could represent the matter and obtain favourable orders from the apex court. On that basis, various amounts were paid to the petitioner to be paid to the advocate appearing before the Supreme Court and also to enable the petitioner to travel to Supreme Court and appear in the said matter.However, since the advocate-petitioner did not obtain favourable orders from the Supreme Court in the case, complaint was filed for offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) have been committed."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," the Court opined..Whoever the advocate may be, the outcome depends on the facts and the law applicable, the Court said.Therefore, the Court noted that the payment of fees and the amount of fees is also not relevant for the outcome of the matter which is private matter between the client and the advocate..In light of the same, the Court observed that the allegations made against advocate that since huge amount of money was paid as fees, the advocate had to obtain favourable orders was unsustainable nor did it attract offence under Section 406 and 420 of IPC."No grounds have been made out in the compliant. The criminal proceedings being an abuse in the process of the Court," the Court said.The bench, therefore, quashed the proceedings pending in relation to the case pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Mangaluru..[Read Order]