HC relief to advocate accused of outraging a woman’s modesty

The Bombay high court on Monday quashed an FIR registered against an advocate, accused of outraging the modesty of a woman by making sensitive statements during a remand hearing. The court ruled that the statements were made without any malicious intent in discharge of his duties

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday quashed an FIR registered against an advocate, accused of outraging the modesty of a woman by making sensitive statements during a remand hearing. The court ruled that the statements were made without any malicious intent in discharge of his duties and reaffirmed the advocate’s right to defend his client during legal proceedings, and right to professional immunity in court proceedings.

HC relief to advocate accused of outraging a woman’s modesty

Advocate Ratnadeep Patil, while pleading the case of his client Vaishali Koli, owner of VSK Group, a real-estate firm accused by investors of financial fraud of ₹2.74 crore, said during a hearing that the complainant had personal relations with a police officer and used the influence to implicate the Koli couple. This offended the complainant and her family, leading to filing of a complaint against Patil for outraging the modesty of a woman at Panvel Town police station.

Following this, Patil filed a petition for the quashing of the FIR, where he mentioned the absence of any intention, adding that with the immunity available to him as an advocate, he argued on the basis of instructions received from his clients.

Moreover, on analysing the arguments advanced with reference to the action of defamation, the bench focused its attention on the definition of ‘privilege’. “The privilege conferred upon an advocate definitely is restricted to the purpose of judicial proceedings in which he is cast with a duty to advance his submission or make such statement, which is relatable to the subject matter of the proceedings,” it stated.

The court found discrepancies in the complaint and acknowledged that continuing proceedings against him would amount to abuse of the law and, therefore, set aside the FIR.