Back
Being an Advocate No Ground to Hold He Cannot Commit Offence:
The , in a significant ruling, has held that a lawyer's profession does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution. Justice Dr. P. Murugan dismissed a petition filed by advocate seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him for allegedly instigating an assault. The court emphasised that an advocate, like any other person, can be held liable for offences depending on their conduct and the circumstances of the case.
A Dispute Over Property Turns Violent
The case stems from an incident on , near Sanangulam Madai in Sivagangai district. According to the prosecution, the , Sornalingam, was walking with his wife and two daughters when his brother Seenivasan (accused No. 2) along with four others allegedly abused, assaulted, and criminally intimidated him using sticks and a hoe. The attack was purportedly at the instigation of , an advocate practicing before , who was arrayed as accused No. 1. A civil dispute over ancestral property between the complainant and his brother formed the backdrop of the alleged assault.
Challenged on Grounds of No Evidence
moved under , arguing that the allegations against him were false and vengeful. His counsel contended that there was no material to establish , and the only allegation was a bare statement that the petitioner had instigated the other accused. It was further argued that since the petitioner had no prior motive or enmity with the complainant, the case could not sustain. Additionally, the petitioner's status as an advocate was highlighted to suggest his unlikely involvement in such an act.
However, the State opposed the , asserting that the FIR and witness statements clearly indicated the petitioner's presence at the scene and his role in instigating the assault. The prosecution maintained that the truth of these allegations could only be tested during trial and that the petitioner's professional standing did not preclude criminal liability.
No Immunity for Advocates: Case Established
Justice Murugan scrutinised the FIR and the statements of the complainant and three eyewitnesses (his wife and two daughters). The court found that the FIR itself stated that all six accused, including , had restrained the victim and that the first accused abetted the others. The eyewitness statements consistently alleged that the assault occurred at the petitioner's instigation.
Rejecting the argument that the petitioner's profession made the allegations improbable, the court observed:
"Though the petitioner is an advocate, the mere fact that he is an advocate cannot be a ground to hold that he cannot commit any offence. An advocate, like any other person, may commit an offence depending upon his conduct and the circumstances of the case."
The court further noted that the question of under —which includes instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid—could not be decided at the quashing stage. Referring to 's decision in , the court highlighted that by instigation can be established if the accused is present and intentionally aids the commission of the offence. Here, the eyewitness statements and the FIR disclosed a case against the petitioner.
Final Decision: Trial to Proceed
Finding no merit in the , dismissed it, directing that the petitioner must face trial. All contentions raised by the defence can be reconsidered during the proceedings before the , in C.C. No. 33 of 2024. The judgment reinforces the principle that no professional status can shield individuals from criminal proceedings where sufficient material exists.
