Allahabad High Court
Neelam Singh vs State Of Up And 6 Others on 13 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85703-DB
AFR
Judgment reserved on: 15.4.2024
Judgment delivered on : 13.5.2024
Court No.-46
Case: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3195 of 2024
Petitioner : Neelam Singh
Respondent: State Of Up And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner: Ritesh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent: G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.
(Per se Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)
1. The petitioner1 has approached this Court through the instant writ petition to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Lucknow, U.P., to take stringent action against (i) the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj; (ii) Deputy Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj; (iii) Assistant Commissioner of Police, Colonelganj, Prayagraj; (iv) Station House Officer, P.S. Colonelganj, Prayagraj; (v) S.I. Sandeep Yadav posted at P.S. Colonelganj, Prayagraj; (vi) PRO Deputy Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj; and further sought mandamus to take action on the complaint dated 26.2.2024.
2. On examination of the complaint, it reveals that the petitioner has made a complaint on 26.2.2024 at 04:00 p.m. at P.S. Colonelganj, Prayagraj with respect to the allegations inter-alia stating that the petitioner's husband was at his residence when a dispute arose between petitioner's husband and his neighbours, someone dialled 112, the police reached at the place of incident, slapped and abused the petitioner's husband and forcibly took him to the police station at Colonelganj. The petitioner informed her husband's friends to reach the police station at the earliest, who all are practising Advocate of this High Court. The petitioner's husband was brutally assaulted and kept in the police lock-up, where paper weight and locks were thrown at him with intention to kill, but somehow he managed to save his life. The incident was witnessed by petitioner's husband's friends, namely, Shri Tejbhan Singh, Shri Acharya Tripathi and Shri Harish Srivastava. The petitioner reported the incident by way of a written complaint to police to register an F.I.R. against the police officers, and the PRO of Commissioner of Police was also informed about the matter and the issue was also brought into the knowledge of the higher officers, but despite that no heed was paid to her grievances.
3. Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra, Treasurer of the High Court Bar Association, also met with the PRO of Commissioner of Police Prayagraj and apprised him about the incident and requested action against the errant police officers. A communication dated 26.2.2024 in respect of the Advocates' grievances at 09:00 p.m. was also allegedly communicated to the office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court to save the Advocate's life.
4. Aggrieved by the non-registration of F.I.R. against the police officers, the petitioner approached this Court under writ jurisdiction and thus, Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that (i) the contents of the complaint dated 26.2.2024 is forming part of the cognizable offence, therefore the police are duty bound to register an F.I.R., (ii) there are serious allegations of forceful abduction in a police van, (iii) the petitioner's husband was brutally beaten up in the police lock-up and ill-behaved by the police officers at the police station, and, therefore, police is duty bound to register the first information report and in support of arguments he has relied upon Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. The State of Maharashtra and others2, and celebrated judgment of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others3.
5. On the other hand, Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri G.P. Singh learned A.G.A. submits that there is no iota of truth in the contents of the complaint dated 26.2.2024. The complaint is deceptive, artificial, motivated and contrived for the purpose and object to prima-facie ensure that the ingredients of any cognizable offence are satisfied on plane reading of the contents of complaint. The writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Chapter XII and XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed at this stage because of the non-joinder of the necessary parties. Initially the petitioner's husband tried to encroach upon the public land for their private use in the vicinity of which there exists an ancient Kali Mata Temple, in which all the neighbours gather for the religious congregations. This led to have an altercation between the petitioner's husband on one side and a group of neighbours comprising advocates and public spirited persons on the other side. As there is one advocate on one side and several advocates on other side, the issue got boiled and the matter was taken to the police station. The petitioner's husband was heavily drunk and was abusing in filthy language and ill-behaving with everyone present over there on the spot. The police was called by one of the aggrieved lawyer's family and the petitioner's husband was taken to the police station respectfully and dignity of an individual was very well taken care by the local police. As the campaigning for the High Court Bar Association was on high spirit, therefore, a group of advocates reached at the spot and thereafter gathered at the police station, from both the sides. Sensing that there could be a law and order problem, the additional police force was called from the nearby police station/district over through ROIP (Radio Over Internet Protocol System). He prays for dismissal of the petition with costs being frivolous and devoid of merits.
6. In support of his submission, learned A.A.G. contends that there is no mechanism before this Court under writ jurisdiction to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. This is particularly significant when both parties' claims and counter-claims are supported by respective affidavits and CCTV footage. It is emphasized that within the scope of criminal writ jurisdiction, the Court is not empowered to assess the veracity of allegations or determine the credibility of evidence.
7. Shri P.C. Srivastava has relied upon Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and others4, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others5, Anil Kumar and others v. M.K. Aiyappa and another6, Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat7, Suresh Kankra v. State of U.P.8, Waseem Haider v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Lko & Ors.9, M. Subramaniam & Anr. v. S. Janaki & Anr.10, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors11, Sweta Bhadoria v. State of M.P.12.
8. On perusal of the record, it's transpired that the police were called upon to file counter affidavit twice; the first counter affidavit dated 4.3.2024 was filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj Commissionerate and the second affidavit of compliance dated 4.4.2024 was filed by S.H.O. P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj. On perusal of the both the affidavits it's revealed that; (i) on the complaint of Advocate Alok Srivastava, the next door neighbour of the petitioner's husband, SHO Colonelganj informed the Chowki-in-charge, Mumfordganj at 13:42 to reach at the spot, and maintained peace at the place of incident, (ii) the SHO and the Chowki-in-charge immediately reached at the spot and found that Advocate Alok Srivastava, Advocated Arun Sharma, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Anoop Srivastava, Pranav Tripathi, Advocate Dilip Srivastava, Vimal Gupta, Vineet Srivastava, Prabal Pratap Srivastava, Atul Singh, and Aniruddh Maurya have complained that the petitioner's husband, Shri Amarjeet Singh, is forcibly occupying the land of the ancient Kali Mata Temple and when he was objected to stop encroachment on the public land, he under the influence of liquor hurled filthy language to the men, women and all neighbours gathered there at the time of incident and terrorized the neighbours by waving long stick in his hand, (iii) after assessing the overall situation, the local SHO informed the PRV and sought the additional force to control the situation, and law and order, (iv) despite repeated persuasion by the chowki incharge and the neighbours, the petitioner's husband was not ready to listen to anyone and was bent upon to assault the neighbours and police personnels, (v) to control the situation of unrest/law and order, ROIP (Radio Over Internet Protocol System) was activated by the police force around 14:10, the petitioner's husband was brought in a respectful manner at the police station in PRV Vehicle 0084 and requested all the victims to reach at the police station, (vi) the Advocates from both the sides were also reached at the police station along with dozen of complaints against petitioner's husband, who were asked to sit properly and asked to explain their grievances so that everything could be settled amicably in a dignified manner, (vii) after a herculean task by the police officers with the aim to maintain harmony and brotherhood between the neighbours-particularly between two group of advocates- the petitioner's husband was cooled down and his custody was handed over to his friend Dinesh Pratap Singh by executing a Supurdaginama, which is annexed as Annexure-CA-2 along with the counter affidavit, (viii) again after few hours a group of advocates associated with the petitioner's husband reached at the police station and started ill-behaving with the police force, the SHO and ACP Colonelganj was abused by threatening them to dis-robe their uniform, (ix) the CCTV footage of police station is also attached with the counter affidavit filed by the police, (x) the incident was recorded in the GD, which is forming part of the counter affidavit as Annexure-CA-3, (xi) again on 28.3.2024 at around 11:30 a.m. the neighbours, who were aggrieved by the illegal encroachment of the public land and criminal act of the petitioner's husband, filed a written complaint to the ACP and apprised that the petitioner's husband is a man of suspicious character and is found involved in four criminal cases enumerated herein: (a) Case Crime No.1090 of 2004, under Sections 307, 286, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 7 of C.L.A. Act, registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (b) Case Crime No.1092 of 2004, under Sections 336, 332, 147, 148, 427 I.P.C. and Public Property Damages Act, registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (c) Case Crime No.1094 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 442, 286, 332 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (d) Case Crime No.2118 of 1998, under Sections 307, 504, 427 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (xii) a copy of the District Crime Report Bureau (DCRB) report is also annexed along with the counter affidavit reflecting with above-stated cases.
9. Upon scrutiny of the counter affidavit submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, it came to light that there were two complaints dated 26.2.2024 and 28.2.2024, signed by multiple individuals including Ms. Sandhya Srivastava, Ms. Stuti Srivastava, Ms. Reeta Srivastava, Mr. Manu Srivastava, Advocate Alok Srivastava, Advocate Arun Sharma, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Anoop Srivastava, Pranav Tripathi, Advocate Dilip Srivastava, Vimal Gupta, Vineet Srivastava, Prabal Pratap Srivastava, Atul Singh, and Aniruddh Maurya. Further examination revealed that on 26.2.2024, around 12:30 p.m., the petitioner's husband attempted to encroach upon the land belonging to the temple. Upon objection from neighbours, Shri Amarjit Singh, the petitioner's husband, in a heavily intoxicated state, verbally abused and behaved inappropriately with the women and neighbours. The neighbours promptly informed the police, leading to the petitioner's husband being taken to the police station. Subsequently, his friends, all of whom were advocates, further engaged in abusive, disrespectful, and threatening behaviour towards the police officers present at the station.
10. Advocate Arun Sharma, Advocate Alok Srivastava, Advocate Dilip Srivastava, Prabal Pratap Srivastava, Aniruddh Maurya, Pradeep Srivastava, Pranav Tripathi, Anoop Srivastava, Atul Singh, Vineet Srivastava, and Vimal Gupta have filed respective affidavits duly notarized by notary public inter-alia stating in the line of contents of the above-stated complaint. The same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
11. As the complaints from both groups of advocates, prima-facie, satisfy the basic requirements to attract the ingredients of cognizable offence, it would be judicious to have a bird's eye view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in this regard. Undoubtedly, the police are obligated to lodge an F.I.R. if the complaint meets the requirments of cognizable offence, and if the police fail in their duty to register an F.I.R., the aggrieved person reserves its right to approach the Court of Magistrate for redressal of their grievances.
12. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has outlined the law with regard to the registration of F.I.R. The relevant portion of the judgment is reiterated herein under:
"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks' time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.13
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."
13. The Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.14, further clarified certain aspects in relation to the registration of F.I.R. where, primarily, dispute is of a commercial nature or as if somebody is determined to settle the personal score by taking undue advantage of criminal courts and thus, observed:
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440, that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC 907] because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. A principled and really aggrieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which warrants the application of judicial mind. It protects the citizens. This provision serves to safeguard citizens' rights; however, when malicious litigations are pursued to harass fellow citizens, measures should be taken to thwart such abuse. The situation can be viewed from a different perspective.
15. When the complainants are lawyers, the pivotal role of a lawyer hinges upon their integrity and professional conduct. Justice Krishna Aiyar, speaking for the bench in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabolkar15, highlighted that a lawyer's primary duty is to administer justice, which entails adhering meticulously to ethical standards to maintain the community's trust in them as custodians of justice. "Law is not a commodity to be traded in briefs; it transcends no merchandise."
16. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks16, the Supreme Court was of the view that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has the discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court should not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy as has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the act is challenged.
17. The relevant paragraph of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe case (supra) is extracted herein below in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied and referred Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (supra):
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440, that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC 907] because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In M. Subramaniam & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that when any power is expressly granted by the statute, it is impliedly included in the ground, even without special mention, every power and every control of the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Where an act confers jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power to do all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution.
19. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Waseem Haider case (supra) has occasioned to deal with a similar case where the petitioner had approached the High Court seeking mandamus for registration of F.I.R. against the respondents. While declining the petitioner's prayer, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court was of the opinion that the Code of Criminal Procedure incorporates enough safeguards for victims and the accused. It lays down detailed procedures for conducting an investigation, filing of final report, taking cognizance, and conducting the trial. It provides enough safeguards against the illegal action of police. It is a self contained code and comprehensive on all aspects of criminal law. A complainant has statutorily engrafted remedies to ensure that his complaint is taken to its logical end. Thus, he must first exhaust said remedies and cannot invoke extraordinary writ remedy as a matter of course, even when a crime is not registered and there is no progress in the investigation.
20. A writ of mandamus seeking to compel the police to fulfil its statutory obligation under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. may be refused to the complainant if they have not first pursued alternative remedies available under Section/s 154(3), 156(3), 190, and 200 of the Cr.P.C., unless the complainant falls within the four exceptions outlined in the Whirlpool Corporation (supra) case.
21. We respectfully say, the Lalita Kumari case (supra) does not pertain to the issue of entertainment of writ of mandamus for compelling the police to perform its statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. without availing alternative remedy under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. Moreover, it was not a case Under Article 226 of the Constitution, where alternative remedy has been exhausted by the complainant or the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or; where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or; where the order or proceedings are whole without jurisdiction, or the vires of an Act is challenged.
22. Merely lodging a complaint with the police regarding the commission of a cognizable offence does not automatically entitle the complainant to invoke writ jurisdiction to seek a writ of mandamus directing the police to register an FIR. This is especially true in cases where there are allegations and counter-allegations between two parties involved in the dispute. If, subsequently, one party clandestinely seeks relief under writ jurisdiction to compel the registration of an FIR against the police, particularly targeting high-ranking officers in the district, with apparent ulterior motives driven by a history of serious cases registered against them, aimed at seeking retribution from the police, as evidenced by the circumstances of the present case.
23. The complainants, who have been aggrieved by the illegal actions of the petitioner's husband and have formally reported the incident to the police, their complaint being reported in the General Diary, have not been arrayed as respondents for reasons known only to the petitioner. The contents of the complaint appear patently false, and the initiation of criminal proceedings appears to be motivated by malice and ill-intent, with the aim of seeking revenge against the neighbours and settling personal scores with the police. This is evident from the complaints dated 26.02.2024 and 28.02.2024, as well as from video recordings captured by CCTV cameras installed at the police station. Furthermore, the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint dated 26.2.2024 are so outlandish and inherently improbable that no reasonable person could conclude that there is even a shred of truth to the claims therein.
24. Essentially, on one hand their is the petitioner's husband, who is an advocate, allegedly engaged in abusive and threatening behaviour towards the neighbours, including women, while apparently intoxicated, as evidenced by CCTV footage. This behaviour occurred in the context of an attempt to encroach upon public land. On the other hand, there are neighbours, including women and advocates, filed notarized affidavits on Rs.100 stamp paper, detailing their grievances. Both parties approached the police, who responded to a neighbours phone call by bringing the petitioner's husband to the police station and summoning additional forces to maintain to bring the law and order situation under control.
25. Against this backdrop, the petitioner filed a complaint dated 26.02.2024 at the police station, expressing dissatisfaction with the non-registration of an FIR against various officials, including the Commissioner of Police, District Prayagraj, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Station House Officer of P.S. Colonelganj, and S.I. Sandeep Yadav posted at Colonelganj, along with the Public Relations Officer of the Commissioner of Police, District Prayagraj. The petitioner has now filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a directive for the registration of an FIR. It is worth noting that the advocates who filed the complaints dated 26.02.2024 and 28.02.2024, namely Arun Sharma, Alok Srivastava, Dileep Srivastava, Prabal Pratap Srivastava, and Aniruddha Maurya, have not been arrayed as respondents in the instant writ petition. Additionally, it is surprising to note that no accusations have been levied against them throughout the entirety of the petition. Moreover, neither have the other group of advocates who lodged the complaints dated 26.02.2024 and 28.02.2024 approached this Court.
26. The principal issue before this Court is whether, in light of the provisions contained in Chapters XII and XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a writ of mandamus can be issued to the police authorities to register an F.I.R. on the basis of a complaint containing certain indictments against the police officer by ignoring disputed facts containing counter allegations of a serious nature.
27. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's husband is a practising Advocate of this Court and involved in the criminal history of four cases outlined herein: (a) Case Crime No.1090 of 2004, under Sections 307, 286, 332, 353 I.P.C. and Section 7 of C.L.A. Act, registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (b) Case Crime No.1092 of 2004, under Sections 336, 332, 147, 148, 427 I.P.C. and Public Property Damages Act, registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (c) Case Crime No.1094 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 442, 286, 332 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (d) Case Crime No.2118 of 1998, under Sections 307, 504, 427 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj. The outcome of these cases remains uncertain at this juncture. However, it is regrettable that Advocates are resorting to unethical practices by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under the pretext of fundamental rights infringement, while in reality, it appears to be an attempt to settle a personal vendetta with the police. This is evident, particularly considering that the petitioner is currently facing four serious criminal cases in the same police station.
28. Based on the forgoing discussion and on thorough deliberations and examination of records containing complaints filed by both parties, affidavits filed by the advocates and other neighbours, who have called the police at the spot, scrutiny of CCTV footage, reasons for mobilization of police from the nearest police station to maintain law and order and non-joinder of necessary parties before this Court, we are of the view that this is not a fit case where indulgence of this Court is warranted. The proceedings initiated by the petitioner are an abuse of the process of law, and any indulgence by this Court would have an adverse effect on the administration of justice and detrimentally impact the morale of the police, an institution tasked with upholding law and order in civil society.
29. Further, we have no hesitation to record our finding that the petitioner has approached this Court under writ jurisdiction with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the police and with the view to spite them due to private personal grudge and does not call for the exercise of extraordinary powers of this Court to direct the Principal Secretary (Home) Uttar Pradesh to register F.I.R. against the respondents.
30. Parting with the facts of this case, there is another issue of vital importance; the complainant is the wife of an advocate on one side and the other side, a group of neighbours, including dozens of advocates. Initially, the dispute was between the two group of advocates majorly; the police reached at the spot on receipt of a phone call by one of the parties, and subsequently, the neighbours lodged a complaint against the assailant Advocate., surprisingly, the writ was filed only against police officers, and other neighbours, have not been arrayed as respondents in the instant writ petition, nor have any accusations been made against them in the entirety of the petition and in a dramatic twist to the scenario, everyone, including the aggrieved party, brandished their guns towards the police in a shocking turn of events, for reasons known only to the petitioner,.
31. Thus it is apt to quote, Kailash Gambhir J, speaking for the Bench in Baker Oils Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Ltd. And others,17 that the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules prescribe Rules for professional conduct and ethics for lawyers. It cannot be forgotten that anyone who has been graced with the owner of wearing of robes is the officer of the Court, and his prime duty is to assist the Court in the administration of justice. The Rules of Conduct, as per Bar Council of India Rules, may act as a guardian angel for ensuring the moral conduct of the lawyers, but the legacy of the traditions of the Bar cannot be bedaubled by a few for lucre of commercial gains. A lawyer cannot forget that this is a novel profession not only because he enjoys an aristocratic position in society but also because it obligates him to be worthy of the community's confidence in him as a vehicle of achieving justice. The rules of the conduct of this profession with its ever expending horizons are governed by the Bar and by the cannons of conscience of the members of the calling of justice of being the Smaritance of the society,
32. It is seemingly interesting to emphasize the introductory part of Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study18 the book's central idea is that the moral activism as an appropriate role conception. It respects each lawyer's personal autonomy and enhances the public welfare. The relevant excerpts are produced hereinafter:
"The law, Holmes said, is no brooding omnipresence in the sky. But if that is true, it is because we encounter the legal system in the form of flesh-and-blood human beings: the police if we are unlucky, but for the (marginally) luckier majority, the lawyers. For practical purposes, the lawyers are the law.
This is why the professional ethics of lawyers matters to us. Since the law as it touches us cannot be different from what lawyers do, it will not be better than lawyers care to make it. The commonest and bitterest complaint against the legal profession is that lawyers do not give a damn about justice, or, when they do, it is despite their profession rather than because of it. This means that the law has to do with justice only accidentally.
The complaint is exaggerated and the chronicle of its splendid exceptions would have to be a long one. I have written this book because I believe that the complaint is nevertheless largely accurate. Lawyers, no matter how high-minded their private concerns and commitments, are professionally concerned with the interests of their clients, not the interests of justice. And taken as a totality, the activities of lawyers can scarcely rise higher in the pursuit of justice than the projects of their clients. Justice is left to the largesse of the Invisible Hand.
Though I take this complaint seriously, I am not interested in contributing to the cacophonous lawyer-bashing that is practically a national hobby. Quite the contrary, I am convinced that there is, in Louis Brandeis's words, "opportunity in the law"-indeed, "special opportunities for usefulness to your fellow-men"-precisely because lawyers are uniquely situated to bring the law down to earth and to make the law more just and the lawyer's clients more public spirited.
This is a grandiose ambition. But we all know lawyers, with humble practices as well as great ones, who fulfil it, and so it is scarcely an impossible dram. I shall be urging a professional ethic according to which lawyers should seize the opportunity in the law, and I shall defend it against a professional vision based only on client service and the bottom line. My task is philosophical: to examine, as carefully as I known how, the reasons that can be offered in justification of one or the other professional vision, to try them, as Kant put it, before "tribunal of reason" itself."
33. We have underscored the excerpts from the introductory part of the Luban's work primarily for two reasons: Firstly, the book delves into the ethics of the legal profession, rooted in the fundamental premise that our nation relies heavily on its lawyers, thus their ethical dilemmas often translate into social and public challenges. Secondly, echoing the sentiments of Benjamin N Cardozo J.19, "a lawyer's life is no life of cloistered ease to which you dedicate your powers. This is a life that touches your fellow men, of every angle of their being, a life that you must live in the crowd, and yet apart from it, man of the world and philosopher by turns."
34. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
35. A copy of this judgement be transmitted to the Chairman, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and office bearers of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad to sensitize the learned advocates to uphold the ethics of moral activism by employing ethical means, even in challenging circumstances- let's revatilized a tradition we are known for.
Order Date:- 13.5.2024
Anil K. Sharma
(Vinod Diwakar, J.) (Siddharth, J.)
