New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for “malicious prosecution” of an advocate, who merely identified the opposite party in an affidavit.
Not only did a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismiss the special leave petitions (SLPs) filed against the Bombay High Court’s decision to quash disciplinary proceedings against advocate Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, but it also imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 each on the BCMG and the complainant for causing her “immeasurable grief and harassment”.
The matter arose from a dispute between Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, a former lecturer at Ismail Yusuf Junior College, and the college, leading him to file a complaint against advocate Shastri for allegedly attesting to false statements in a chamber summons affidavit.
As per the complainant Bhakad, the statements set out in the affidavit were ultimately found to be false, and, therefore, the respondent-advocate, by subscribing to the affidavit, had lent support to the false recitals and made a false deposition based on the contents of the affidavit.
In its impugned decision, the Bombay High Court had quashed the complaint, noting that the respondent-advocate had not sworn any affidavit herself and that identifying the deponent did not make her responsible for the affidavit’s content.
Affirming the Bombay High Court’s decision to quash the “wholly absurd and untenable” complaint, the Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench said: “An advocate, by mere attestation of the affidavit, does not become privy to the contents of the affidavit. Hence, ex facie, the complaint filed by the petitioner, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, against the respondent-advocate was not only bereft of substance but was also founded on malicious and spiteful insinuations directed against the advocate who merely identified the opposite party in an affidavit.”
In its judgment, the apex court came down heavily on BCMG, observing that the order passed by it — directing the registration of the complaint and referring the same to the Disciplinary Committee (DC) for inquiry — was illegal on the face of the record and bordered on perversity.
“It is manifestly a case of malicious prosecution of the advocate at the behest of the opponent litigant,” observed the bench, ordering that the costs imposed be deposited with the Bombay High Court registry within four weeks, from where they will be paid to advocate Shastri.
(IANS)
