The Allahabad High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings against an advocate in a matter alleging fraud and misuse of professional trust, observing that acquittal in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto mandate quashing of criminal prosecution.
The proceedings arose from a complaint filed alleging that the applicant, advocate had accepted a substantial sum as professional fees while assuring a favourable outcome. The matter was initially taken before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, where an ex-parte suspension order was passed, debarring the applicant from legal practice for five years.
The advocate thereafter sought recall of the ex-parte decision. Upon reconsideration, the disciplinary committee dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence and the suspension was revoked. Subsequently, the complainant instituted a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, leading to the summoning order under Section 420 IPC.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the criminal prosecution was manifestly malicious, instituted only after the disciplinary complaint stood dismissed. It was submitted that the dispute was essentially civil in character, arising out of professional fee dealings, and the summoning order was therefore an abuse of the process of law. It was further contended that the allegations lacked the essential ingredients of cheating.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the Magistrate had summoned the applicant only after considering statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and that there existed sufficient material to justify trial. No perversity or legal infirmity was shown warranting interference.
The Court underscored a well-settled principle that a disciplinary acquittal does not automatically entitle an accused to quashing of criminal proceedings. In significant remarks, the Court stated, “An acquittal in a disciplinary proceeding is not automatically a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. Both proceedings are distinct in purpose, proof, and process, and can continue simultaneously.”
Emphasizing the limited scope under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court observed that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage. Only a prima facie case is to be evaluated, and whether any offence is actually made out will ultimately be determined through evidence at trial.
Concluding that the allegations could not be brushed aside at the threshold, and that prima facie material existed to justify prosecution, the Court refused to interfere. The application seeking quashing of summoning order and proceedings was dismissed for lack of merit.
Case Title: Yogesh Kumar Bhentwal Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. - 12981 of 2018
Coram: Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Shashank Maurya
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. G.A., Manvendra Nath Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
