Lawyers skipping hearings is professional misconduct, says Allahabad high court
2
3
Prayagraj: Advocates not appearing for listed cases amount to professional misconduct, said the Allahabad high court while hearing a bail application where no one was present on behalf of the applicant to argue the matter.
When the case list was revised by the court and no lawyer appeared for the applicant in a bail matter, Justice Krishan Pahal said, "Advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench-hunting or forum-shopping," the court further added. When the bail application was called out at the outset, the court noted that such non-appearance was not a first or isolated incident as it had occurred on previous dates as well.
However, the counsel for the informant informed the court that the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) had already been recorded and the trial was at its conclusive end.
Taking a serious note of non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal (2021) in which it was held that courts shall not grant adjournments in a routine or mechanical manner and must not become a party to delays in the delivery of justice.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Luxurious Apartments With a Smart 20:40:40 Payment Plan
L&T The Gateway
Book Now
Undo
While noting that the mere pendency of a bail application cannot confer any right upon the applicant and that it cannot be allowed to remain pending indefinitely, the court said, "The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation.
Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law, even though the order is available on the website of the high court."
"The resources of the court which include precious judicial time are scarce and already stretched beyond elastic limits. Valuable court time, which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation, which is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law. A judicial system has less than sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances.
Therefore, the courts have held that totally unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed and the party so wasting precious judicial resources must be required to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system itself," the court added.
In this conspectus, the court in its decision found that the applicant Pooja has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, by the efflux of time, it seems to have been rendered infructuous. Hence, the court rejected the bail application. "The instant case is the misuse of the process of court by the applicant," the court added in its order dated July 8.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ED neither ‘super cop' nor loitering munition: HC
Chennai: Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not a 'loitering munition or drone' that can strike at will in any criminal case, Madras high court observed. A division bench comprising Justice M S Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan also said the ED is not a 'super cop' empowered to probe all matters that come to its attention. "There should be a criminal activity which attracts the schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and on account of such criminal activity, there should be proceeds of crime. It is only then the jurisdiction of the ED commences," the bench asserted. The court made the observations on a plea moved by RKM Powergen Pvt Ltd (RKMP) challenging an ED order dated Jan 31, freezing its fixed deposit worth 901 crore. Representing RKMP, senior advocate B Kumar, assisted by S Ramachandran, submitted that the petitioner was among five companies that were allotted the Fatehpur East Coal Block in Chhattisgarh in 2006. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai The allocation was later cancelled following a Supreme Court ruling in 2014 that declared such allocations illegal. The CBI subsequently registered an FIR but later filed a closure report in 2017, stating the case was a 'mistake of fact'. The trial court, however, directed further investigation, Kumar said. Meanwhile, the ED initiated an investigation under PMLA in 2015 and earlier issued a freezing order on RKMP's accounts, which was set aside by Madras high court. In 2022, the high court again restrained the ED from proceeding further due to the absence of a predicate offence, he added. The ED's special leave petition challenging the 2022 order was withdrawn from Supreme Court in 2024 after a CBI supplementary chargesheet was filed. Despite this, the ED froze RKMP's fixed deposits in Jan 2025, prompting the petitioner to approach the high court again. Kumar contended that the ED's order was passed without any new material and in violation of previous court rulings. Opposing the plea, additional solicitor-general A R L Sundaresan said, "…if there are any proceeds of crime, then the agency gets the jurisdiction to attach the amount, even if there is no predicate offence." As to the order passed by HC in 2021, he submitted that the court had not restrained the ED from proceeding further with respect to the coal allocation cases, and since the CBI subsequently filed a chargesheet, the ED can pass the present order. Recording submissions, HC said, "It is too well settled that where an act has to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way and in no other way. The PMLA demands the existence of a predicate offence. When there is no predicate offence, initiation of proceedings under PMLA is a non-starter." "The essential ingredient for ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. It is like a limpet mine attached to a ship. If there is no ship, the limpet cannot work. The ship is the predicate offence and proceeds of crime," the judges said. The court ruled that the freezing order lacked legal foundation and quashed it.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
SC slams Allahabad HC for making film producer pay Rs 25 Lakh before Mediation in cheating FIR, quashes case
New Delhi, Jul 19 (UNI) The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Allahabad High Court for directing film producer Shailesh Kumar Singh to pay Rs 25 lakh to a complainant as a precondition for referring a cheating FIR dispute to mediation, despite it being a purely civil matter. A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan quashed the FIR registered against Singh, co-founder and production head of Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, calling the High Court's approach 'disturbing' and contrary to settled law on quashing criminal proceedings. 'We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order. The High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs 25 lakh to the complainant and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation Centre. That's not what is expected of a High Court… What is expected is to look into the allegations in the FIR along with the material on record,' the Bench observed. The FIR, filed on January 9, 2025 at Hariparwat Police Station in Agra, alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 60(b), 316(2), and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant, a promoter of Polaroid Media engaged in financing media projects, accused Singh of cheating in connection with an oral business agreement between their companies. Singh approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that it was a civil commercial dispute being given a criminal colour. However, the High Court on March 7 directed him to pay Rs 25 lakh to the complainant, appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, and pay Rs 5,000 as mediation fees, while restraining his arrest conditionally. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to examine whether the FIR disclosed any criminal offence and instead turned the proceedings into a recovery mechanism. 'How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception,' the Court said. The Bench emphasised that even if Singh owed money under the oral agreement, it did not amount to cheating unless there was fraudulent intent from the beginning. It held that the FIR was an abuse of the criminal process and quashed it, clarifying that the complainant remained free to pursue recovery proceedings in an appropriate civil forum. 'We fail to understand why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying no offence is disclosed, or reject it if a case is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant recover the amount due and payable by the accused,' the Court remarked. Advocate Sana Raees Khan appeared for Singh, Advocate Anand Mishra represented the complainant, and Advocate Shaurya Krishna appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh. UNI SNG RN
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Ex-NIA judge moves Delhi High Court seeking arms licence for personal security
New Delhi: A former special judge of National Investigation Agency (NIA) recently approached Delhi High Court seeking directions to central govt and Delhi Police to issue him an arms licence. In his plea, the judge cited personal security concerns. Hearing the plea, Justice Sachin Dutta recorded an assurance by the govt counsel that a decision on the judge's pending application would be taken within four weeks. "The above redresses the immediate grievance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pending application also stands disposed of," the court stated. Justice Dutta, however, noted that if the petitioner judge was not satisfied with the decision taken by the authorities, he could seek legal remedies. In the petition filed through advocate Sadiya Rohma Khan, the judge submitted that he served as a special NIA judge in Tripura and was currently on deputation in Delhi. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi He said he applied for an arms licence in Nov 2023, but no action was taken on his request, reflecting a "casual" attitude by Delhi Police's licensing authority. According to the petition, the judge was called by the police licensing authorities for a personal assessment last year, and he appeared for the same. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Use an AI Writing Tool That Actually Understands Your Voice Grammarly Install Now Undo However, there was no development after the assessment. "It is shocking that the petitioner and his family are living with no security in New Delhi, and this potentialises both direct and indirect threats to their personal safety and security," the plea argued. Since his family is permanently stationed in Delhi, he applied for an arms licence to ensure protection and safety so that he is free from any "external criminal threats and potential risks and non-interference in free movement and is able to defend himself if a threat arises", the counsel submitted. Invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner argued that forcing his family to live without any security amounted to a violation of their right to life and personal liberty.
