Delhi High Court rejects plea by woman accused of assaulting lawyer; says lawyers essential pillar of judicial process

Lawyers are an essential and powerful pillar of the judicial process and their duty towards a client has to be respected by all concerned, the Delhi High Court recently observed [Dhanpati v State]..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while refusing relief to a woman accused of assaulting a lawyer.The Court rejected the submission by the petitioner-woman that the lawyer's accusation was motivated by a criminal case filed by the petitioner against the lawyer's client. "To hold that the present complaint is false only because it is lodged by a lawyer, who was representing a client against whom the assaulter had lodged a complaint a few years back, will be, to say the least, unreasonable and absurd," said the single-judge. .The lawyer had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner for threatening, restraining and assaulting her in 2017. A trial court thereafter framed charges and set aside Magistrate orders discharging the petitioner.By way of background, the petitioner had lodged an FIR against the lawyer's client in 2014 and the same was pending trial since then. Following a hearing relating to this FIR where the lawyer appeared, the petitioner allegedly abused her, misbehaved with her, and assaulted her..In the plea, the petitioner claimed that the FIR was motivated since a criminal case was pending trial against the lawyer's client and to save her client, the lawyer filed this case..The Court refused to accept this argument and said that one of the fundamental principles of legal representation by a lawyer is that lawyers do not allow personal biases or prejudices to influence or interfere with their professional obligations and their responsibility. "A lawyer representing her client, is only carrying out her duties and she cannot be presumed to have any personal enmity or grudge against the complainant in case she is representing an accused or against an accused, if she is representing the complainant. The lawyers are officers of the Court and should not be presumed to be only defending the party concerned as part of their duty," the single-judge added..Justice Sharma opined that if a finding as sought by the petitioner is allowed, advocates will not be able to work or discharge their professional duties without fear. In such a scenario, even if a person injures or assaults an advocate, such a person will seek protection behind a plea that the lawyer lodged a complaint on behalf of their client..Further, the Court said that any complaint ought to be adjudicated irrespective of the financial or professional nature of the parties. "A person's financial position or profession cannot become a basis for holding that due to their such profession or position, the complaint lodged is false even if in reality they have been assaulted and injured.".Thus, the plea seeking to set aside of the order framing charges was dismissed. .Advocates RD Rana and Jagdish Singh represented the petitioner while advocates Satish Kumar and Vipul Chaudhary represented the respondents..[Read Order]