Factual Matrix 

In the instant case of Dhanpati @ Dhanwanti v. State (NCT of Delhi) A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, asking the court to overturn an order by the Additional Sessions Judge that framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860. 

The FIR was filed in response to a complaint made by a practising attorney who said that on February 8, 2017, she and the client she was representing appeared in Saket Court. The client was charged in a case in which the petitioner accused was the complainant. It was claimed that following the hearing in the aforementioned case, the petitioner-accused began mistreating the complainant inside the courthouse. When the complainant was on her way to her chambers with her client, the petitioner-accused stopped her, beat her, and threatened to harm her. Additionally, it was claimed that the petitioner-accused mistreated the complainant and severely bit her hand after restraining her.A charge sheet for charges punishable by Sections 323, 341 and 506 of the IPC was filed against the petitioner here once the investigation was complete. Following the filing of an appeal, the ASJ overturned the MM’s decision and noted that, in light of the categorical declarations made by the complainant and witnesses that were recorded in accordance with Section 161 of the CrPC, there was sufficient evidence to establish charges against the accused. The petitioner-accused had chosen the current petition because he was upset with this order.

Argument Advance 

The petitioner-accused claimed that she had been harassed by the complainant, a lawyer who was defending a person against whom the petitioner-accused had filed an FIR in 2014 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and that she had been the victim of circumstance. The complainant’s testimony was said to be unsupported by any evidence and to contain numerous inconsistencies, therefore the trial would not result in a conviction. It was therefore asked that the contested order would be reversed.

Analysis of Court Decision 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma presided over a single-judge bench that denied relief to the petitioner who was charged with assaulting an attorney and expressed the opinion that the fact that there was no CCTV evidence of the purported incident precluded its use as grounds for the petitioner’s release. The Court additionally stated that since the solicitors were court employees, it was improper to assume that they were solely responsible for representing the party in question. They were a vital and strong component of the court adjudicatory process, therefore everyone involved had to honour their duty to a client.

The Court further stated that it would be illogical and ludicrous to declare the current complaint false just because it was made by a lawyer who was defending a client who the petitioner-accused had previously filed a complaint against. If this Court made such a conclusion, advocates would be unable to carry out their professional responsibilities without feeling threatened. In such a case, even if someone were to harm the advocate, they would still seek protection because the advocate had filed a complaint on their behalf. The Court further stated that regardless of its financial or professional nature, any complaint made to the police must be considered and decided. As a result, the Court denied the current petition and stated that there was no justification to overturn the ASJ’s contested order.