Filing of FIR after lawyer threatened in front of client not malpractice: Madhya Pradesh HC

Dismissing a man’s plea to quash an FIR after he was accused of threatening his lawyer, the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court said lawyers do not have any vested interest in their clients’ cases and therefore threatened them because they accepted the case the accused is an interference in their professional life.

Thus, registration of an FIR due to threats for representing a client in court cannot be considered malpractice, the court emphasized.

Rejecting the allegation of the petitioner that the FIR filed against him is malpractice Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed “If a lawyer is threatened only because he has accepted a mandate on behalf of the accused, then this will certainly mean interference in the professional life and duties of the lawyer. As a rule, lawyers represent the case of their parties, and they are not personally interested in the case. In these circumstances, if a lawyer is threatened merely because he is acting in his client’s case, filing an FIR for such conduct cannot amount to malpractice of legal profession.”

In the present case, respondent No. 2 (counsel-complainant) filed an FIR against the petitioner for offenses under Sections 294 (Obscene acts and songs), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous tip) of the IPC.

The plaintiff was a lawyer by profession and appeared in the case as the plaintiff’s lawyer. It was alleged that on February 23, the appellant made several calls to the mobile phone of the complainant/counsel and threatened his life and also threatened to drop the case. Therefore, as the complainant became afraid, he did not file the report immediately. On March 11, the plaintiff again threatened the complainant not to appear before the accused, and also tried to pressure him to reach a compromise. On March 19, when the complainant was before the SDM court, the complainant approached him and insisted that he drop the case and claimed that he had dealt with many lawyers and the complainant would not be able to harm him in any way.

When the complainant informed him that he was working as a professional and had nothing personal against the complainant, the complainant started insulting him and said that if he did not drop the case, he would be killed and falsely implicated in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (prevention of atrocities); thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint and an FIR was registered.

Challenging the FIR filed by the complainant, the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was not present at the spot and was in the hospital for treating patients, hence the FIR is false.

Regarding the plaintiff’s alibi defense, the court said, “It must be proved by a preponderance of evidence, and it cannot be proved by a preponderance of probabilities. It is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Further, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR is nothing but a malpractice of advocacy. The court replied that the lawyers represent the case of their parties, and they are not personally interested in the case. So, if a lawyer was threatened merely for representing his client, filing an FIR for such conduct cannot be termed as malfeasance.

“No case warrants interference as the allegations made in the FIR are indeed manifest offences,” The court said.

Thus, the motion was denied.

Case Name: Nitesh Sharma Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors Writ Petition No. 36916 of 2024

Click here to read/download the order