Advocates react aggressively given the nature of their job; need not be prosecuted for it: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a lawyer accused of obstructing a revenue official from doing his duty..Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that lawyers by virtue of the nature of their jobs, tend to react more aggressively than others and they should not be prosecuted for the same. “The demeanor of an Advocate will always be different from the demeanor of a layman. Considering the position that he holds and job that he performs, an advocate in most of the situations reacts boisterously. This is a character which is developed by an advocate by virtue of the nature of duty that he performs for his clients. The legal profession involves fighting for the rights of the clients and the advocate tends to react more aggressively even outside the courts," the Court stated. Therefore, the Court quashed the FIR against the advocate C Raja who had been booked by the police for allegedly having obstructed revenue officials from carrying out a survey of a land plot owned by his client. The Court noted that though Raja had reacted strongly, he had merely been trying to protect the rights of his client."It may be true that the petitioner had expressed himself more strongly to defend the rights of his client and that by itself should not result in a criminal prosecution against an advocate. The main intention on the part of the petitioner was not to prevent the government officials from performing their function and on the other hand, the petitioner was only attempting to safeguard the rights of his client,” the Court said..As per the complaint made by the revenue officials to the police, Raja and his client had “picked up a quarrel” with them when they were conducting a survey of the subject property as part of removal of encroachments from government land.Raja told the Court that his client had already filed a suit before the local district court regarding the ownership of the said land and when the officials came for the survey, his client had called him to the spot.The Court, therefore, noted that Raja had merely been doing his duty and that there was no need for continuation of investigation in the case..“In the considered view of this Court, the continuation of the investigation as against the petitioner will result in abuse of process of Court and the same has to be interfered by this Court,” the Court said while quashing the FIR..Advocate K Prabhakaran appeared for Raja.Additional Public Prosecutor A Damodaran appeared for the State government..[Read Order]