The Punjab and Haryana High Court pulled up an Assistant District Attorney for hiding her relationship with the accused while appearing as State counsel in a sexual harassment case against her husband. The Court called out the conduct of both husband and wife as an attempt to misuse the judicial process.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticised a law officer from Haryana for acting as State counsel in a criminal case that was filed against her own husband.
The Court noted that the woman, who is serving as an Assistant District Attorney (APP) in Panchkula, appeared in the case without informing the Court that the accused was her husband.
Justice Archana Puri observed that the APP had failed to follow basic legal ethics and had compromised her professional duty by appearing in such a matter.
According to the case record, the couple is already engaged in multiple matrimonial disputes and litigation before different courts. The criminal case in question, however, was filed by a different complainant, alleging sexual harassment against the husband.
Despite the sensitive nature of the case, the APP continued to appear before the Court as a State counsel without revealing her relationship with the accused.
Justice Archana Puri remarked:
“The said conduct be noted by the District and Sessions Judge and he should ensure that [the APP does] not appear as State counsel, in any case arising out of her matrimonial dispute with the applicant [husband].”
The order came while hearing a plea filed by the husband seeking transfer of a maintenance petition filed by the couple’s daughter from Panchkula to Chandigarh.
The husband argued before the Court that since his wife is posted as APP in Panchkula, she was exerting undue influence in matters connected to cases pending against him.
To support his claim, the husband presented orders of the trial court that showed the presence of his wife in the sexual harassment case on several hearing dates. He also pointed out that an application for leading additional evidence was filed in that case on behalf of the APP for recalling the complainant.
In response, the wife’s counsel argued that she appeared in the case only as a temporary arrangement because the other APP was on leave.
ALSO READ: Rouse Avenue Court to Hear ED Money Laundering Case Against Robert Vadra on Sept 20
It was also argued that the husband himself had earlier filed a petition before the High Court for transfer of another execution petition from Bhiwani to Panchkula but, at that time, he never objected to his wife’s posting at Panchkula.
After hearing both sides, the Court made strong observations against the conduct of the wife. The judge stated:
“It was required on the part of xxx, to immediately bring it to the notice of the Court concerned, where the case was pending, about her relationship with the accused [husband], that it was not so done. In the said case, xxx had not made appearance once, rather, there were repetitive appearances made by her. In the given circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that xxx inter-meddled in the pending criminal litigation, with some purpose or making an exaggerated effort to secure the success of the case, against [husband].”
At the same time, the Court also criticised the conduct of the husband, noting that he had raised the objection about his wife’s posting only after obtaining an interim stay order in a separate case relating to arrears of maintenance.
The Court commented:
“This is also a very reprehensible conduct.”
Taking a strict view of both sides, the Court further observed:
“In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, both the parties are trying to befool the Courts, for their own vested interest, in an exaggerated effort to seek transfer of the cases, criss-cross, with a sole purpose to harass each other.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the husband’s transfer plea but also directed the trial court to act carefully in future hearings. Justice Archana Puri instructed the trial court to ensure impartiality despite the wife’s position as an APP.
The order stated:
“So far as, assertion of exercise of influence, to get favourable order, is concerned, the Court concerned also, shall remain vigilant, with regard to conduct of both the applicant, as well as mother of the respondent, namely, xxx, who is working as ‘Assistant District Attorney’ and deliver the verdict, as and when required fearlessly.”
The husband in the case was represented by Advocate Virender Kumar.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Sexual Harassment
