Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Agarwal @ Abhisek Garg Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 678 of 2023
----
Abhishek Agarwal @ Abhisek Garg son of Ramavtar Agarwal,
resident of Flat No. F66, Lilac, Ashiana Gardens, 6th Floor, Sonari,
PO PS Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sudhir Kumar son of late Asrafi Mahato, resident of H. No.849,
B/Block, Budhram Mohalla, Sonari, PO PS Sonari, Town
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, AC to Sr. SC I
Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate
----
5/ 10.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated
05.08.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Jamshedpur in
Complaint Case No.2053 of 2023, whereby cognizance of offence under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and this petitioner has
been summoned.
3. Allegation is that the complainant being an Advocate, duly granted
licence by the Bar Council, had entered into an agreement with the petitioner,
who is the accused to the effect that he will take 10% of the settlement amount
after the judgment. It is alleged that the agreement was not adhered to by the
client, i.e., the petitioner herein for which a complaint has been filed.
4. By the impugned order, the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence.
5. Rule 20 of Part VI, Chapter II, Section II of the Standard of
Professional Conduct and Etiquette prohibits an Advocate from charging any
fees contingent on the results of litigation or agree to share the proceeds
thereof. If an advocate indulges in such act, same will be a misconduct.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Sunitha versus
State of Telangana and Another reported in (2018) 1 SCC 638 at paragraph
17 has held as follows: -
17. In view of the above, the claim of the respondent
advocate being against public policy and being an act of
professional misconduct, proceedings in the complaint filed
by him have to be held to be abuse of the process of law
and have to be quashed.
7. Thus, this type of agreement is itself illegal. An illegal agreement
cannot be executed and non-compliance of such illegal agreement cannot be
agitated through the process of law. This factor has been lost sight of by the
learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence and issuing
summons. Thus, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned order
dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Jamshedpur
in Complaint Case No.2053 of 2023 is hereby set aside.
8. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
