Orissa High Court refuses to quash FIR against lawyer accused of taking money from client to bribe judge

The Orissa High Court recently refused to quash a criminal case against a lawyer accused of taking over ₹16 lakhs, and a gold chain and bracelet from a client on the pretext of using the same to bribe a judge for favorable bail orders [Sambit Samal v. State].

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra dismissed the lawyer's plea to quash the first information report (FIR) against him, while imposing costs of ₹10,000.

"The Court is not inclined to (quash the FIR) as the allegations are not only at a nascent stage of investigation but also as quite serious in nature as the name of a former Judge of this Court has been soiled," the Court said.

It also directed the State Bar Council of Orissa to hold an inquiry into the allegations.

The Court added that it could not discard the allegations made by the complainant-client since it was inconceivable for a common litigant to fabricate such a serious allegations against a lawyer or against a judge.

"The facts of the present case, as alleged, would show that the Petitioner has insinuated and attributed wrong doing to a former judge of this Court ... The informant is aware of the social status of the Petitioner as an advocate. No common person would normally dare to make false allegations of such grim nature against a member of the bar knowingly fully well that there would be dire consequences in case the allegations are found to be false or motivated," the Court observed.

The accused lawyer had filed the present plea to quash a 2021 criminal case pending before a Cuttack trial court against him.

According to the FIR, the lawyer had been engaged to represent a man seeking bail after his arrest in a case under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors Act (OPID Act). The arrested man's wife (informant/ client) claimed that she paid ₹16.35 lakhs to a person named Anil Kumar Patra in Bhubaneswar on the instructions of the lawyer.

Additionally, she claimed she gave the lawyer a gold chain (65 grams) and a gold bracelet (50 grams) meant for the marriage of a Judge’s daughter, who was to hear her husband's bail application. Land deeds were also later transferred to the lawyer on his demand, she claimed.

The FIR included phone chats between the lawyer and the client and pictures as evidence. The informant alleged that after her husband's bail was denied, the lawyer demanded an additional ₹16 lakhs for a fresh application.

When she requested the return of the case files, land deeds, and money, the accused lawyer allegedly refused and threatened to file false cases, using his "connections" with judges to block her husband's bail pleas.

The informant alleged that despite repeated requests, the lawyer refused to return the money and documents. She claimed that she later discovered that the lawyer had used blank papers with her husband's sign to file two false bail applications.

The lawyer later promised to withdraw the false cases and return the money and documents but failed to fulfill this commitment. The woman thus registered criminal case against the lawyer.

The judge observed that the details outlined in the FIR made for sordid reading, adding that such conduct was unbecoming of an advocate.

"The advocate enjoys the implicit faith of the court, each and every advocate practicing in a particular court not only an officer of that court but also acts as an ambassador of the law to the society at large," the Court added.

The Court highlighted that advocates are expected to show a very high standard of morality and an unimpeachable sense of legal and ethical propriety.

"Since the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act have been entrusted with the duty of guarding the professional ethics, they have to be more sensitive to the potential disrepute on account of action of a few black sheep which may shake the credibility of the profession and thereby put at stake other members of the Bar."

It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favor from a Judge, the Court further underscored.

"In case an advocate causes disrepute of the Judges or his colleagues or involves himself in misconduct, that is the most sinister and damaging act which can be done to the entire legal system. Such a person is definitely deadwood and deserves to be chopped off," the Court added.

The Court went on to note that honest and diligent judges can only emerge if honest and hardworking lawyers are nurtured. It emphasized that the time has come for society, State Bar Councils, and judges to heed the warning signs, take corrective measures, and address these issues early on to prevent further deterioration.

Advocate Surya Narayan Biswal appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Standing Counsel Sangram Keshari Mishra appeared for the State.

[Read Order]