Merely Because The Petitioner Is An Advocate Does Not Place Him Above The Law: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
He contended that under the garb of investigation of the FIR, he was subjected to intimidation and harassment and was repeatedly called to the Police Station.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that merely because the petitioner is an Advocate does not place him above the law.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar held, “Merely because the petitioner is an Advocate does not place him above the law. Rather, being an officer of the Court and well versed with the legal position, he is expected to render such lawful assistance to the Investigating Agency as may be required so that the truth concerning the alleged offence is brought to light and, if an offence has indeed been committed, the offender is brought to justice.”
The Court was hearing the petitioner’s contention that, under the garb of investigation of the FIR, he was subjected to intimidation and harassment and was repeatedly called to the Police Station without adherence to the due process of law.
Advocate Wani Manzoor appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Harris Khan appeared for the respondents.
FIR was registered for offences under Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4,5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The Court noted that the petitioner had drafted an affidavit on behalf of the alleged victim in respect of whom the FIR had been registered. According to the respondents, the affidavit indicated that the alleged victim, who was reported missing and in respect of whom the FIR had been registered, had been in contact with the petitioner.
It was in this background that the Police, upon receipt of information from the Police Station, sought to enquire from the petitioner about the whereabouts of the alleged victim.
“In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents, while conducting the investigation in connection with the FIR, acted dehors the process of law,” the Court observed.
The Court said that cooperation by the petitioner is “in consonance with the administration of justice and the duties expected of an officer of the Court.”
At the same time, the Court made it clear that the Police Agency is equally required to act strictly within the four corners of law.
“Therefore, while seeking any information or assistance from the petitioner in connection with the alleged victim or the investigation of the aforesaid FIR, the Investigating Agency shall scrupulously adhere to the procedure established by law,” the Court directed.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that, after the filing of the petition, the Police Agency had stopped calling the petitioner and fairly conceded that, as on date, the cause of action did not survive. A direction was, however, sought to obviate any apprehension of harassment in future.
The High Court accordingly disposed of the petition with a direction that, while proceeding with the investigation of FIR, if the assistance or presence of the petitioner is required, the same shall be sought strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
Cause Title: Wasim Ahmad Reshi v. UT of JK & Ors.