The Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR registered against Advocate Ratnadeep Ram Patil, who was accused of Outraging a woman’s modesty during judicial proceedings. The FIR, lodged under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arose from statements made by the lawyer while defending his client in remand proceedings. A division bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande ruled that these statements, made in the course of judicial proceedings, were protected by the privilege conferred upon advocates under the law.

The case originated when Advocate Patil represented Vaishali Koli, an accused in a multi-crore cheating case. During the remand proceedings on July 20, 2024, Patil alleged, based on instructions from his client, that the complainant had illicit relations with a police officer and had conspired with him to implicate Koli. This statement, made before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Panvel, prompted the complainant to lodge a complaint with the Magistrate. However, dissatisfied with the response, the complainant later approached the Panvel Town Police Station, leading to the registration of the FIR.

The Court noted significant discrepancies in the complainant's version of events. The initial complaint filed with the Magistrate merely alleged that Patil’s statements were offensive and discourteous, with no mention of the accusation concerning an illicit relationship. However, the complaint to the police, made on the same day, specifically alleged that Patil had publicly accused the complainant of having an affair with a police officer. The Court remarked, “It is highly unbelievable that a woman, who is aggrieved by the unjustified comment made against her, when approached the Court, failed to refer the said utterance. But, immediately when she approached the police station in the evening, accompanied by her lawyer, she specifically make this assertion by stating that the Petitioner had accused her of having a love affair with police officer and with his aid, has conspired to implicate the accused persons.”

The Court emphasised the protection afforded to advocates under the law. It referred to Navin Parekh v. Madhubala Shridhar Sharma 1992 Mh.L.J. 1409 where it was held that lawyers acting in good faith on instructions from their clients enjoy a privilege in judicial proceedings. The Court also drew on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604, establishing that when the allegations in an FIR do not constitute a prima facie offense, the proceedings must be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process.

The Court further elaborated on the essential elements of Section 79 of BNS, which criminalizes any act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. The provision, akin to Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, requires the presence of intention or knowledge to insult modesty.

In this case, the Court found no evidence of malice or ulterior motive on the part of Advocate Patil. It observed that his statements were directly connected to the subject matter of the remand proceedings and were based on instructions received from his client. The Court remarked, “even if he had cast aspersions upon her, character, since they were based on the instructions received from his clients, which has reference in the complaint made on-line and its receipt in the police station is not denied, we deem it appropriate to extend the privilege of an Advocate to the present Petitioner .” The bench concluded that the advocate was merely discharging his professional duty and had no intention of offending the complainant’s modesty.

The Court also noted the exaggerated and inconsistent nature of the complainant’s allegations. While the initial complaint to the Magistrate referred to a general insult, the subsequent complaint to the police detailed the accusation of an illicit relationship, raising doubts about its authenticity. The bench emphasized, “Precise and context-specific assessments are required to ensure that justice is both fair and accurate,” echoing the caution expressed in Section 509 of IPC.

In quashing the FIR, the Court held that the allegations against Advocate Patil failed to establish the requisite intent under Section 79 of BNS and that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Case Details- Ratnadeep Ram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra

Advocates for the Petitioner - Mr.Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saurabh Butala, Mr.Harshad Sathe, Ms.Manvi Sharma

Advocates for the Respondent - Ms.Sharmila S. Kaushik, A.P.P, Ms.Shazia Bano Mohammad Shoeb.