The Rajasthan High Court, in its 10 May judgement placed paramount importance on the ethical conduct of lawyers when interacting with clients and performing their jobs as law facilitators. The judgement relates to case, Simara Foods Pvt Ltd Vs State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4109/2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:RJ-JP:21592, pronounced on 10 May, 2024. The judgement said that Advocate should not blindly follow the instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal or contrary to the principles of justice. Accordingly, the FIR that was registered at Banipark Police Station, Jaipur was quashed. The case involved Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd, represented by its Director, Praveen Satpal Jain, and M/s MS Agri, with mediator Pritesh Maheshwari who were embroiled in a commercial dispute.

The dispute originated from a complaint that was lodged under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C which alleged fraudulent transactions and breach of trust. The court noted the absence of prior legal disputes between the parties during their longstanding business association, which definitely casts a very serious doubt on the sudden criminal allegations. The Court also underscored the dire need for caution in exercising the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., urging the courts to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings in commercial matters. In its considerations to finalising the judgement, the court referred to various legal precedents that clearly highlight the judiciary’s role in rightly ensuring that civil disputes are not unduly escalated into criminal matters.

The judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Anil Kumar Upman, first and foremost put forth in Para 1 that, “This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.239/2022 registered at Police Station Banipark, Jaipur (West) for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.” Other important content of the Judgement is as follows:

Para 2

“Brief facts in a nutshell are that the complainant-respondent No.2, submitted a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metro-II alleging inter alia that the petitioner induced him into delivering material against advanced payment by raising proforma invoices. It is alleged in the complaint that he paid advance amount but neither the petitioner supplied the material nor returned the advance amount to him. The complainant also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner made fraudulent entries in the books of accounts and usurped his money. The learned trial court sent the matter to the Police Station Banipark Jaipur for investigation whereupon the impugned FIR No.239/2022 came to be registered against the accused petitioner for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.”

Para 8

“From perusal of the Impugned FIR one fact is well established that the petitioner and the complainant have enjoyed a mutually beneficial business relationship for a significant period of time. Their association has been characterized by trust, cooperation, and a shared interest in maintaining a successful business venture. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that several business transactions took place in between the petitioner and the complainant from 2017 to 2022. The complainant in this FIR alleged that on 29.09.2017, he made advance payment of Rs.23,29,000/-, 25,00,000/- (total Rs.48,29,000/-) in favour of the petitioner, but neither the goods were supplied to him nor margin money was paid to him as the accused petitioner, with intention to cheat him, made forged invoices as the petitioner was not having any stock with him.”

Para 9

“In my considered opinion, when the complainant has already experienced such a mischievous incident of cheating and fraud, said to be played by the petitioner with him, then as to why, he kept on continuing his business transactions for the next five-six years.”

Para 24... constitutes the cornerstone of this judgment...

“Now a days, it has been noticed that tendency to convert civil wrongs into criminal offence is growing and people are intended to settle the civil or commercial dispute with the help of police as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mohammad Ibrahim (supra). Now time has come to deprecate this practice/tendency, and for this advocates as well as courts are required to be more vigilant. As an advocate serving the Indian judiciary, his primary duty is to represent his clients in court proceedings. This involves presenting their case, arguing on their behalf, and protecting their rights and interests. He must provide legal advice to his clients on various matters, including their rights, obligations, and potential legal consequences of their actions. This advice should be based on his legal expertise and knowledge of the relevant laws. Simultaneously he is expected to adhere to high ethical standards and professional conduct. This includes being honest, diligent, and respectful towards the court, opposing counsel, and all parties involved in the legal proceedings. He has a basic responsibility to uphold the rule of law and promote justice. This involves advocating for fair and equal treatment of all individuals, irrespective of their social status, and ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld in the legal system. As a lawyer serving the Indian judiciary, it is crucial to prioritize the interests of justice and uphold the principles of professional ethics. This means that an advocate should not blindly follow the instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal, or contrary to the principles of justice. Advocates have a duty to act in the best interests of their clients, but this duty is subject to certain limitations. The Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules lay down the ethical guidelines that advocates must adhere to. These guidelines emphasize the importance of maintaining professional integrity, promoting justice, and upholding the rule of law. If a client’s instructions are in violation of these ethical guidelines or if they involve engaging in dishonest or unethical practices, it is the duty of the advocate to advise the client against such actions. Advocates are expected to provide honest and unbiased advice to their clients, even if it may not align with the client’s desired outcome. Furthermore, an advocate’s duty is not only towards their clients but also towards the court and the administration of justice. Advocates are officers of the court and have a responsibility to assist the court in reaching a just decision. This duty requires them to present the facts and arguments honestly and to refrain from misleading the court.”

Para 25

“In summary, an advocate should not blindly follow the instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal, or contrary to the principles of justice. Advocates have a duty to act in the best interests of justice and uphold the ethical standards set by the legal profession.”

Para 26

“Simultaneously, Courts should not hesitate in quashing the criminal proceedings which are essentially arising out of civil or commercial disputes between the two parties as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Paramjeet Batra (supra) and Dalip Kaur (supra). Police stations can/should not be allowed to work as recovery agent or to make pressure upon one party of the litigation in the garb of criminal investigation to settle the civil disputes.”

Para 28

...the FIR No.239/2022 registered at Police Station Banipark Jaipur and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it, are hereby quashed.”

In summary, an advocate is a leading officer of the court. It thus merits no reiteration whatsoever that he/she must behave most responsibly and should not be ever tempted by lure of money or any other material considerations and should always desist from blindly following the instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal or contrary to the principles of justice.