Bombay High Court stayed proceedings against a lawyer booked in a 2020 suicide case, questioning police action. The court said merely representing a client cannot amount to abetment.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday came down strongly on the Mumbai Police for not closing a case against a lawyer who had been booked for abetment of the suicide of a private company’s employee at the Mumbai international airport.
A division bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and R.R. Bhonsale, while passing an interim order, stayed all proceedings against the advocate.
The court questioned the police for dragging the lawyer into the case.
“What is this? Is it only because he is representing some client? Where are we leading Mr?,”
the judges asked Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute during the hearing of the plea.
The case goes back to the year 2020, when the Sakinaka police filed an FIR against the company’s owner and its advocate after an employee, working as a trolley supervisor, died by suicide and left behind a note naming them.
Advocate Sanjeev Kadam, who appeared for the lawyer, explained that the company had asked his client to conduct a departmental inquiry into the employee’s misconduct. He pointed out that the advocate was only acting in his role as an enquiry officer when the incident happened.
The wife of the deceased employee also filed an application under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking harsher charges.
She alleged that her husband had been sidelined by the company since 2019, was asked to sit at home without work, and was under severe stress because of the departmental inquiry.
After hearing this, the court made a significant observation.
The bench remarked,
“In such conditions, all advocates will face such a situation one day or other. There will be no advocate to accept a brief of such person,”
The judges also took note of the suicide note.
“Kadam drew our attention to the suicide note that is allegedly scribed by the dead. A bare perusal of the suicide note clearly reveals that the petitioner was an advocate of the company in which the deceased was working. There is no allegation of abetment to commit suicide at the behest of the petitioner to the deceased in the same suicide note.”
Finding strength in the submissions made by Kadam, the bench further noted that the lawyer was appointed by the company to provide legal advice, conduct an inquiry, and represent the management before forums if required.
The court added,
“Only because the petitioner appeared on behalf of the company does not amount under law that he was instrumental in initiating the enquiry.”
The police had filed an “A summary report” in the case, which is normally filed when an offence is made out but there is not enough evidence.
However, the High Court disagreed with this approach.
The bench stated in its order,
“In perusing the suicide note, according to us, instead of filing a summary report, the police ought to have filed a closure report against the advocate who appeared on behalf of the company and has no role against him of abetment. In view of the above, all further proceedings arising of the Sakinaka case qua the petitioner are stayed,”
Finally, the bench also issued notice to the deceased employee’s wife and said that the plea will be heard again after three weeks.
This order is a strong message from the Bombay High Court that lawyers performing their professional duties cannot be unnecessarily targeted with criminal cases. It highlights that simply appearing for a client or conducting an inquiry on behalf of an employer does not amount to abetment of suicide under law.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Suicide Case
