IN VIEW of its finding that in any case, since there was no intention on part of the petitioner-lawyer, Ratnadeep Ram Patil to insult the modesty of the complainant, as he was only discharging his duty of defending his clients in the remand proceedings and even if he had cast aspersions upon her character, since those were based on the instructions received from his clients, which has reference in the complaint made on-line and its receipt in the Police Station is not denied and the Court deemed it appropriate to extend the privilege of an Advocate to this petitioner and more so, the Court also found that the statement was not unconnected to the case, as it is the case of his clients that by using the pressure tactics ,they were being coerced to pay the money. A Bombay High Court division bench consisting of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, at Mumbai has added further in the judgement of the case –Ratnadeep Patil v.

 

The State of Maharashtra & Others, delivered on December 9, 2024, whether the money was due and payable is not an aspect, which the HC was called upon to determine and, therefore, leaving it there, the Court’s finding is that utterances by the petitioner to be protected by the privilege conferred upon him, as those were uttered in the judicial proceedings and were connected with the remand proceedings, as the accused persons (his clients) were sought to be remanded in the offence of cheating, which they were accused of. This petition was filed by Advocate Ratnadeep Ram Patil under section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of FIR registered against him at the Police Station, Panvel on July 20, 2024, invoking section79 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It is also surprising to note that the complaint filed by the respondent-3, before the Magistrate was not taken forward and no FIR was filed and the two complaints before the Magistrate for that matter identically worded, but the respondent-2 filed an improved version of it before the concerned Police Station, resulting in invocation of section 79 of BNS. On April 29, 2024, an FIR came to be registered by Khandeshwar Police Station on the complaint filed by the respondent-3, by citing Santosh Koli, Vaishali Koli, Chaitanya Koli and one Krishna Milan Shukla as accused by alleging that by giving false promise of handsome returns, the accused persons collected huge sum of money and they cheated the complainant along with respondent-2 as well as one more lady named therein., It was alleged that collectively the victims were duped in the sum of Rs 2,74,87047.20 and it was alleged that the amount was misappropriated by preparing forged documents. In the said Crime Report, sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC were invoked against the four accused persons and it was alleged that the amount was transferred to the accused through cheques on-line transfer and some amount was also paid in cash. In connection with the said offence, accused Vaishali Koli was arrested and services of the petitioner were engaged by her to represent her in the remand proceedings.

 

In the petition, it has been specifically pleaded that Vaishali Koli is running a Firm –VSK Group, which is engaged in the business of real estate and the respondents 2 and 3 along with other women invested money in her firm voluntarily, as she had assured them handsome returns, but since the business was disrupted on account of unforeseen contingencies, she could not regularly return their investment and she was continuously harassed for return of their money by respondents - 2 and 3. Her husband Santosh Koli transferred his flat at Sukapur in the name of Mrs Savita Shende, one of the investors, and, therefore, respondent -2 was continuously harassing Vaishali Koli to transfer her land at Roha in her name and she accompanied respondent-3, visited house of Vaishali on February 29, 2024 and threatened her to return their money and exerted influence by saying that they have good connections in Police Department and also with Ministers. Santosh, husband of Vaishali, forwarded on-line complaint on March 3, 2024 to Khandeshwar Police Station.

 

In the meantime, on the complaint lodged by respondent-3, crime was registered at the Police Station against Vaishali Koli as well as her husband. It is in this case, Vaishali was arrested on July 9, 2024 and was produced before the JMFC, Panvel ,the next day and he remanded her to police custody till July 20, 2024. Thereafter, her husband Santosh was alao arrested and was produced before the Magistrare, the same day. The accusations faced by the petitioner, in this case, arose from the event, when he was an Advocate, pleaded his case before the JMFC, in support of his client, by reiterating the allegations by Santosh Koli in against Respondents 2 and 3, which included the accusation of the nature of relationship shared by respondent -2, to which he had made reference in his on-line complaint of March 3, 2024 and it formed part of his arguments advanced in opposing the remand of his client, Vaishali. At the time of remand, various documents were filed on record, including the complaint made by Santosh Koli as well as the WhatsApp chat. Admittedly, during the hearing, respective husbands of respondents 2 and 3 were present in the Court and it was alleged that feeling annoyed and disparaged by the accusations levelled, resopondent-2 immediately filed an application before the JMFC, where she referred herself as complainant and informed the Court that the lawyer of the accused (the petitioner) has leveled personal accusations.

 

The HC has pointed out that it is well accepted principle in law that right to free speech is not an absolute right and one cannot assert existence of this right by levelling reckless utterances, which tantamount to defame another person, as the said person equally has a right of his dignity, which is a part of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The privilege conferred upon an advocate is definitely restricted to the purpose of judicial proceedings, in which he is cast with a duty to advance his submission or make such statement, which is relatable to the subject matter of the proceedings. With this principle being kept in mind, the HC looked at the statement made by the petitioner, which is based upon the assertion made by his client in the complaint, which he had already preferred on-line and in absence of any malice or intention on his part, We (the Court) fail to understand how it would attract section 79 of BNS, which punishes an offence of insulting the modesty of a woman. The HC has quashed the FIR, set aside the proceedings and allowed the criminal writ petition, observing that continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of the process of law.