I N THE judgement of the criminal application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) filed by Sambit Samal against State of Odisha delivered on October 29, 2024, in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Sebo Sankar Mishra has declined to quash the prayer for quashing the FIR made through the application and dismissed the application with costs of Rs 10,000/- payable by the petitioner. The HC has given reasons for its decision, as the allegations are not only at a nascent stage of investigation but also as quite serious in nature as the name of a former Judge of this court has been soiled. The informant has given meticulous details of the demands made which correlate to the period when the matter was pending before this Court. Therefore the application has no merit and is being dismissed. The petitioner has approached the HC seeking quashing of the FIR of November 11, 2021 at the Police Station, Mangalabag and the related case is pending in Court of the JMFC (City), Cuttack. The informant in this case is the wife of an accused in a case under OPID Act and had approached this Court on earlier occasion seeking bail. The facts of the case, as alleged in the FIR are that the informant has paid a total of Rs 16,35,000/- (Rs 8,35,000/- through bank transfer to his account and Rs 8 lakh in cash) through a person named as Anil Kumar Patra of Bhubneswar as per the petitioner’s instruction.

 

It is, therefore, alleged that as per the petitioner’s instruction, the informant gave him one gold chain of 65 grams and one gold bracelet of 50 grams for daughter’s marriage of the then Judge, who was supposed to hear the bail matter of her husband. The name of the said Judge was written in the complaint. Further, it has been alleged that two mobile phones were handed over to the petitioner as per his instructions. It has been stated in the FIR that the corresponding phone chats between the informant and the petitioner as well as some pictures have been also enclosed herewith.The petitioner had also asked for handing over of some original title-deeds/ land record for the purpose of securing bail pursuant which two original land deed of Mouza Kaushallya were handed over to him. After the dismissal of bail matters of informant’s husband, the petitioner, thereafter, demanded additional sum of Rs 16 lakh to file a fresh bail application. The informant has alleged further, that on requisitioning the return of their case file, original land documents and money, the petitioner denied the same and threatened them that he will lodge false case against them and would also destroy their court cases as he has good links with many judges of the High Court and lower Courts. The petitioner also allegedly threatened the informant that he has many friends in judiciary, so he will put them to task and the informant’s husband will never get bail from any Court.

 

The HC has reminded that the Supreme Court, in the past had occasion to decide a similar caseShambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry – (2001) 6 SCC 1. In that case, an advocate was accused of demanding bribe from the client allegedly to influence the Judge seized of the matter. The SC has held in this decision, that it is the most heinous form of professional misconduct and had severely dealt with the issue. It was held that one expects from advocates at the bar a very high standard of morality and unimpeachable sense of legal and ethical propriety. Since the Bar councils under the Advocates Act have been entrusted with the duty of guarding the professional ethics, they have to be more sensitive to the potential disrepute on account of action of a few black sheep which may shake the credibility of the profession and thereby put at stake other members of the Bar. In its decision of the case- R Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, High Court of Madras –(2019) 16 SCC 407, the SC has quoted Alexander Cockburn that “the weapon of the advocate is the sword of a soldier, not the dagger of the assassin”. It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favour from a Judge.

 

The ethical standard is uncompromisable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a strong action needs to be taken in order to maintain the faith of the litigant and the society at large. Provisions underthe Chapter-V of the AdvocatesAct and the Bar Council of IndiaRules, 1975 provide for a mechanism of dealing with cases of professional misconduct on thepart of advocates. It also provides for an opportunity of hearing to both the sides to arrive ata conclusion, either way. The nature of the allegationsin the FIR make out a case whichneeds to be looked into by theDisciplinary Committee of theBar Council to examine whethera case of professional “Misconduct” is made out or not. Before disposing of this application, the HC deemed it necessary to issue directions asrequired to sub serve the causeof justice. Therefore, the HC directed theBar Council of Orissa to hold aninquiry into the allegations, uninfluenced by any observationsand by affording ample opportunity to all concerned to participate in these disciplinary proceedings. In so far as the prayer to quashthe FIR, as sought in this application is concerned, the HighCourt expressly declined to doso, as the allegations made arequite serious in nature. The narration as set out in theFIR makes up for sordid reading. The advocate enjoys the implicit faith of the Court. Each andevery advocate practicing in aparticular court is not only anofficer of the court, but also actsas an ambassador of the law, tothe society at large. Therefore, such conduct is unbecoming of an advocate.