In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against a lawyer booked under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly outraging a woman’s modesty during court proceedings. A Bench led by Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that advocates’ statements, even if they cast aspersions on someone’s character, are protected under the privilege conferred upon them during judicial proceedings.
The Court emphasized that the advocate in question, Ratnadeep Ram Patil, had acted on his client’s instructions and lacked any intention to insult the complainant’s modesty.
“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… we deem it appropriate to extend the privilege of an advocate to the present petitioner,” the Bench stated in its judgment.
The Case Background
The matter arose in July 2024 during the remand proceedings of Vaishali Koli, an accused in a cheating case. Advocate Patil, representing Koli, alleged that the informant and her husband had threatened his client and were involved in an illicit relationship with a police officer. The complainant initially filed a complaint with the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Panvel, accusing the advocate of insulting remarks. However, this complaint did not mention the alleged illicit relationship.
Later, when the complainant approached the police with her lawyer, she specifically accused Patil of alleging an illicit relationship, leading to the registration of the FIR.
Patil challenged the FIR in the High Court, contending that his statements were made in good faith based on his client’s instructions and were relevant to the case. He relied on the precedent set in Navin Parekh vs Madhubala Shridhar Sharma, which affirmed that an advocate’s privilege extends to statements made in judicial proceedings, provided they relate to the case.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts, observing that she had omitted the accusation of an illicit relationship in her complaint before the magistrate but mentioned it when filing the FIR later that evening.
“It is highly unbelievable that a woman, who is aggrieved by the unjustified comment made against her, when approached the Court, failed to refer to the said utterance. But, immediately when she approached the police station in the evening, accompanied by her lawyer, she specifically made this assertion,” the Court observed.
The Bench reiterated the principle that an advocate’s privilege protects statements made during judicial proceedings as long as they are pertinent to the case. It further clarified that the privilege shields advocates even if their statements cast aspersions, provided they are made without malice and in the discharge of professional duties.
Ruling and Significance
The Court ultimately quashed the FIR, upholding the sanctity of advocates’ privilege in judicial proceedings. “An advocate’s statements, even if they cast aspersions on someone’s character, are protected under the privilege conferred upon them in the course of judicial proceedings,” the Court reaffirmed.
Case: Ratnadeep Ram Patil VS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Available on LAWFYI.IO
