The Rajasthan High Court recently highlighted that advocates should not unquestioningly follow clients’ instructions if they are unethical, illegal, or contrary to principles of justice. This observation was made by Justice Anil Kumar Upman during a hearing of a miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Upman emphasized that if a client’s instructions violate ethical guidelines or involve dishonest or unethical practices, it is the duty of the advocate to counsel against such actions. Advocates are expected to provide honest and impartial advice to their clients, even if it conflicts with the desired outcome of the client. Additionally, advocates owe a duty not only to their clients but also to the court and the administration of justice.
The background of the case involves a complainant who submitted a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur, alleging that the petitioner induced him into delivering material against advanced payment by raising proforma invoices. The complainant claimed that he paid an advance amount but did not receive the material or a refund. The petitioner was subsequently charged with various IPC offences based on the complaint.
The Court observed that a longstanding business relationship existed between the petitioner and the complainant, raising questions about the complainant’s motivations for initiating criminal proceedings. The Court noted that the FIR did not establish the alleged offences, and initiating criminal prosecution in such cases may lead to the unnecessary criminalization of civil disputes.
The Court emphasized the importance of preventing frivolous criminal cases and promoting faith in civil remedies. It highlighted the role of advocates in upholding ethical standards and promoting justice, urging them to prioritize the interests of justice over client instructions that are unethical or illegal.
In conclusion, the Court quashed the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner, stating that continuing with the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
