SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(MP) 657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Rahul Jain S/O Shri Ramesh Chand Jain - Appellant
Versus
Neha Jain D/O Shri Mahesh Dayal Jain - Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 22950 of 2024
Decided on : 31-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SHRI KAPIL DUGGAL -ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SHRI DILIP PARIHAR

Litigants should not suffer due to the mistakes of their counsel; allegations of professional misconduct must be addressed to the Bar Council.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Recall of order - Application for recall of order dated 13.05.2024 in MCRC No.19092/2023 filed due to alleged professional misconduct of previous counsel - Applicant misled into believing that reply was filed - Supreme Court judgments cited: Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788 and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 - Court held that litigants should not suffer due to counsel's mistakes. (Paras 2, 8, 10, 11, 17)

(B) Professional Misconduct - Allegations against counsel must be addressed to the Bar Council - Court refrains from making findings on counsel's conduct as it lies within the Bar Council's jurisdiction. (Paras 11, 16)

(C) Jurisdiction - Court cannot adjudicate on matters pending before the Bar Council; any findings would be a nullity. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant filed for recall of an order due to alleged negligence by his previous counsel, who failed to file a reply despite receiving necessary documents. The applicant has lodged a complaint with the State Bar Council regarding this misconduct.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the application for recall, emphasizing that the allegations against the counsel must be resolved by the Bar Council and not the court.

Issues: Whether the court should recall its order based on the alleged misconduct of the applicant's previous counsel.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that litigants should not suffer due to the mistakes of their counsel, but it cannot adjudicate on allegations of professional misconduct, which fall under the Bar Council's jurisdiction.

Result: Application dismissed with liberty to revive after establishing counsel's guilt.

ORDER :

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for recall of order dated 13.05.2024 passed in MCRC No.19092/2023.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that although Vakalatnama was filed by applicant on 19.08.2023 but applicant came to Jabalpur on 01.02.2024 for preparation of return. All the documents which were necessary for filing of return were given to his counsel and necessary papers were also signed. Applicant was all the time misled by his earlier counsel that reply has been filed but in fact reply was not filed at all. It is further submitted that applicant had also paid fee to his counsel but even necessary fee payable on Vakalatnama was also not submitted by his counsel. It is further submitted that applicant has already approached the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur by filing a complaint on 27.05.2024 in which he has specifically alleged in paragraph Nos.4 to 9 about professional misconduct committed by his earlier counsel. It is further submitted that since applicant was not negligent in prosecuting his case but it was on account of professional misconduct by his previous counsel, therefore, order dated 13.05.2024 passed in MCRC No.19092/2023 may be recalled. To buttress his contention, counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 788. It is further submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and another, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770, application for recall of order is maintainable and it would not be hit by the provisions of section 362 of Cr.P.C.

3. Heard learned counsel for applicant.

4. Applicant has made the following allegations in his complaint to the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur which reads as under:

^^2- esjs f[kykQ tcyiqj es,d,elhvkjlh ua- 19092 vkQ 2023 usgk tSu fo#) jkgqy tSu o vU; okn çLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ftldh tkudkjh gksus ds ckn esjs }kjk vf/koäk Jh çnhi dqekj nqcs th ls ckrphr djus ds ckn Jh çnhi dqekj nqcs th us eq>s Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk th ls okn es iSjoh djkus ds fy, dgkA vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs ds dgus ij eSaus vf/k—r vf/koäk Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk],MoksdsV] dks okn ls lacaf/kr lkjs nLrkost,oa os nLrkost ftuds vk/kkj ij ;g okn lafLFkr fd;k x;k Fkk 'kq#vkr es gh çnku dj fn, Fks rkfd okn es fdlh çdkj dk dksbZ foyac u gks vkSj iSjoh djus es Hkh dksbZ ijs'kkuh u vk, lkFk gh vf/koäk dh vf/koäk 'kqYd Hkh Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk,MoksdsV dks vnk dj nh x;hA okn esa Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk],MoksdsV] }kjk esjh rjQ ls vf/k—r gksdj odkyrukek Hkh 19-08-2023 dks is'k dj fn;k FkkA

3- vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs th us 'kq#vkr es vk'oklu nsrs gq, ;g dgk dh vki okn dh fpark u djsA Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk th vPNs ls vkidk okn laHkky ysaxsA

4- fnukad 13-05-2024 dks vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs ds }kjk çkFkhZ dks d‚y ds ek/;e ls ;g crk;k x;k dh vki tcyiqj gkbZ dksVZ ls okn es gkj pqds gS vkSj yap le; rd bles vkns'k Hkh ikfjr gks tkosxkA eSaus dbZ ckj vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk ls ckr djus dh dksf'k'k dh ysfdu Qksu dkYl ij Hkh vf/koäk iou dqekj th }kjk ;gh cksyk tkrk Fkk dh oks vHkh O;Lr gS] 'kknh es gS] ;k ckgj gSA eq>ls ckr Hkh ugha djrs FksA eSa ckj ckj vf/koäk ls okn dh çfrfyfi ek¡xrk jgk ysfdu vf/koäk us okn dh dksbZ tkudkjh ugha nh rc eSaus,d ckj fnukad 01-02-2024 dks tcyiqj tkdj Hkh muls feyus dh dksf'k'k dh Fkh ysfdu vf/koäk us v‚fQl feyus u cqykdj gkbZ dksVZ ds ifjlj es tks guqeku eafnj gS ogk¡ feyus ds fy, cqyk;k vkSj ogh dgh eqykdkr dh xbZA rc eSaus okn ls lacaf/kr nLrkost dksVZ es is'k djus ds fy, iou dqekj lDlsuk vf/koäk dks nksckjk çnku fd,A tc bl ckr dh tkudkjh vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs dks gqbZ rc vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs us eq>s Qksu djds xqLlk fd;k,oa fpYykrs gq, eq>s dgk fd vki okn dh fpark u djs vkidks vxj vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk ls feyuk gS ckr djuk gS rks vki fdlh vkSj ls okn dks yM+ok ys ge vkidk okn NksM+ nsrs gSA vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs us eq>s Qksu ij ;g Hkh dgk fd vxj vkidk

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top