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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)

ON THE 22nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42393 of 2022

BETWEEN:-

DHARMENDRA SINGH PARIHAR S/O SHREE

PREM SINGH PARIHAR, AGED ABOUT 22

YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE CHAPEDA

SATGANV TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHAJAPUR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(SHRI GOURAV SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

PETITIONER .

AND

1.

NARAYAN PRASAD PANDEY S/O LATE SHREE

MADANLAL PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE 91 YOGESH BHAWAN

NAI SADAK SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION S/O DISTRICT

BAR

ASSOCIATION SHAJAPUR,

DISTRICT

SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(SHRI PRANAY JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2

THOUGH DULY SERVED.

This PETITION coming on for ADMISSION this day, but with

the consent of parties, heard finally and the court passed the

following:

Advocates:
Gourav Shrivastava,

This petition has been filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for

transfer of the complaint case registered as SCNIA No.133/2021

pending before the Court of JMFC, Shajapur (M.P.) to any other nearby

1

situated Court.

Facts of the case are that non-applicant/respondent has filed a

complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act alleging that the cheques

bearing numbers 610702 and 610703 of Rs.2.,00,000/- each were

issued by the applicant in lieu of a financial liability against the non-

applicant. The cheques were presented for encashment before the bank,

but were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in the accounts of the

applicant. The said complaint was registered as SCNIA No.133/2021

pending before the JMFC, Shajapur. The respondent is a practicing

advocate at Shajapur and hence, in view of the resolution of District

Bar Association Shajapur dated 27.05.20022 that no advocate enrolled

in their association can be engaged in any case against the advocates

and, hence, the petitioner and his counsels have also moved an

application for engaging another counsel. On 25.06.2022, the learned

trial Court has rejected applications of the applicant and framed the

charges against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In view of

the resolution dated 27.05.2022 and ignoring the facts the learned

Court has passed the order dated 25.06.2022 which affects the

fundamental rights of the petitioner and hence, the present petition has

been filed for transfer of the case to nearby Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the resolution

passed by District Bar Association, Shajapur as well as the order of

learned trial Court dated 25.06.2022 are in violation of general rule of

2

law 'right to defend' which is available to the applicant/accused as

guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The

prayer of the petitioner was very limited to adjourn the case only for a

short period and in view of the resolution, the advocates appearing on

behalf of the petitioner have withdrawn their vakalatnama. The learned

trial Court has erred in passing the order while there were no advocate

on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner was under apprehension

that as the respondent is also an advocate and due to the resolution of

Bar, no advocate will appear in his case. It is further submitted that in

case the trial is commence in absence of the Advocate for the petitioner,

the petitioner will suffer irreparable losses and unlawful hardships.

Hence, prays for transfer of the case to the adjacent place/Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other hand, has

opposed the prayer by submitting that the notice issued by the District

Bar Association, Shajapur has already been withdrawn and there is no

hardship in hearing the matter at Shajapur and prays for dismissal of the

petition.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is evident from the record that District Bar Association,

Shajapur has given notice (Annexure A/4) to the advocates appearing on

behalf of the petitioner on 27.05.2022 and the advocates appearing on

behalf of the petitioners have prays for withdrawal of their vakalatnama

by filing an application (Annexure A/3). It is also evident that District

3

Bar Association, Shajapur has passed the resolution that no member of

the District Bar Association will appear in any case which is filed

against any Member of District Bar Association, Shajapur. Such

resolution is illegal. It is fundamental right enshrined by the

Constitution of India to every citizen to avail legal assistance from

any Advocate/Lawyer, Firm or authorized person. Such resolution

is not only unconstitutional but also against the ethics of

professional advocacy as well as against the concept of Articles 14,

20, 21 and 22(1) of Constitution of India. Legal profession is one of

the honourable profession. Every litigant should be at liberty to find

out for himself as to which lawyer will render him the best services.

Such resolution is also against the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex

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