Title: Some Specimens of the Nobel and Learned Profession – Part IV
Some Specimens of the Nobel and Learned Profession - IV
Some Specimens of the Nobel and Learned Profession - IV
CRL stands for Criminal side Lawyer of the Accused person.
OL stands for opposite side lawyer.
PP and APP stands for public prosecutor and Assistant public prosecutor respectively.
party. He called for the court’s case file, and wrote a note directing the matter to be placed before the Family Court on next Monday, for passing the judgment of divorce.
Forum Home > Family Law > How to prove Section 498-A Offences
(In the context of false case booked under Section 498A of IPC)
In this narration,
A side show amongst counsels
On the day when the matter was posted for mediation, a side show developed. The CL has a junior lawyer, who is in his late twenties or early thirties. According to another civil lawyer friend, this person was skilled in fleecing more money from the clients, than his own senior! This collection by the worthy junior would be in addition to the payment of fee to the CL.
On that day, he talked to the OL for a few minutes and returned to me to inform, “sir, that OL is money-minded! I can make out that if right sum is offered to him, he will prevail upon the complainant to accept settlement for fifteen lakhs. It may be necessary to pay him another fifty thousand.” I told this junior “fifteen lakh rupees is quite a generous offer. None from the other side should be unhappy to accept it. If the OL can prevail upon his client to accept it, we don’t mind compensating OL.” For good measure I added “and you too!”
The junior lawyer huddled into conference with the OL. He returned about fifteen minutes later and confirmed that we would have to through the motion of mediation and he would persuade his client to accept the offer of fifteen lakhs. As readers would recall, the last demand of the complainant wife was Rs.30 lakhs. The gap between our offer and their demand was far too wide to be bridged. However, with this work done through the second channel, I felt that negotiation before the mediator would be concluded on Monday.
Meeting the PP of sessions court
Next day, late evening the CRL called me and complained at length about his not getting paid for filing of anticipatory bail application. He also made much show about my not joining him to meet the PP in the Sessions Court. “It is now too late in the day to do so. You should have approached me much earlier.” He made it sound as though nothing more could be done about it now. By now, I had realized that this was his usual style of talking, always blaming the client for real or imaginary faults. This was to get worse, with every passing day. I asked him, “could we meet the PP on Friday?” He pompously replied that he was busy on Friday and had to appear in several courts including High Court. I persisted, “Can I come to High Court around
I found the CRL near the court hall of High Court where criminal petitions were heard. The court hall was too crowded. CRL’s matter was 60th in the cause list. At that time, 31st matter was being heard. So, the CRL took me to the next court hall, which was vacant. As soon as we sat there, the first task I did was to pay him another 10K. I told him, “On the day you filed the Cmisc petition, I was not carrying sufficient money. Here is part of your fee.” He beamed broadly and took the money. Thereafter, he was very cordial. Thus, I found that his grumpiness was on account of not getting paid then and there!
We waited till about
When the PP came out of the court and entered his chamber next door to the court hall, we also followed him and occupied the visitor’s chairs before him. He gave us an interrogative look. The CRL told him “On Monday, a Cmisc is coming up for anticipatory bail.” He paused at this stage and told me to handover thousand rupees to PP, which I did. The PP pocketed it without even a glance at me and without any break in the conversation with the CRL! PP asked the petitioner’s name, name of police station. He located the petition copy served on him. CRL requested him, “the court has agreed to hear arguments on Monday itself, if you can file objections on Monday”. The PP agreed to do so. CRL further requested PP to make a note of the Cmisc number. The PP airily replied, “don’t worry. Once you have told me, I will take care of it!”. With that, we were dismissed and returned to the High Court in another fifteen minutes. I dropped the CRL at the High Court and returned to my office. Before parting, the CRL told me to be present at the Sessions Court on Monday by
Sessions hearing and drama at mediation centre
On Monday morning, I kept on trying for the CL. But as usual, he was inaccessible. Since CRL wanted me to be present at the Sessions Court for argument of anticipatory bail application, I could not also be present at the mediation centre on Monday, which was also fixed at 3.00 pm. Eventually, when I managed to get him on the phone at 1.00 pm, I requested him to appear for the mediation, as I would be away at the Sessions Court. But, the CL refused to continue the conversation on the ground that he was in the middle of some discussion or argument! The lack of commitment for the client’s cause was absolutely shocking. After an hour, he called and told me that his junior would accompany the accused husband at the mediation centre. Knowing his proficiency and abilities, I knew that until I returned to the mediation centre, the accused husband would be a lone lamb amongst wolves. This junior was too dumb to contribute meaningfully to the mediation process.
I waited for the CRL at sessions court. He turned up at around
We sat in my car, which was parked in a tree shade and shared the lunch I had brought. By
I had no experience in the Sessions Court. Just as the magistrate had dictated the bail order in the open court immediately after the argument, I expected the Sessions Judge to do so upon conclusion of the arguments. This meant that the parents in law would have to remain in exile for at least another ten days, assuming that the order would be pronounced on next Monday granting anticipatory bail, and we would be able to get certified copy of the order, the next day. I was dejected. The CRL and another elderly advocate explained to me, “Even the courts are worried about being attributed oblique motive, if they pronounce the order immediately. Hence, the delay.”
With that, we left the court complex. The CRL had to return to his office-cum-home. He wanted me to drop him at my place, from where he could go by autorickshaw. On the way back, I explained to CRL the anxieties of the parents-in-law, the fact that the accused husband’s sister was in the family way, how, because of threat of harassment by the police, the family had splintered and dispersed. The CRL’s response was typical of a lawyer who cared only about his case and fee. “What can be done? The case will proceed and your people would have to attend the court regularly!” I told him caustically, “As a counsel, it is easy for you and me to expect litigants to regularly attend court. You must appreciate the client’s concern. None would want to come to the criminal courts, wait amidst criminals, pimps and prostitutes and stand in the box of the accused. None would want to go to court as a litigant, and as a patient to a hospital!” That must have hit the target. He kept quite thereafter.
Having come so near he stepped into my office, saw my library, met my chamber colleague, shared a cup of tea and then left. Thereafter, I called the accused husband, who must have been facing heavy artillery in the mediation centre. When he spoke, the desperation and anxiety were evident in his voice. He told me, “It is better if you come. These people are playing acting all kinds of drama.” With that message, I left for the family court complex, which also housed the mediation centre.
In the mediation centre, which occupied the ground floor of the court complex, there are nearly a dozen mediation rooms. I located the room where our case was in progress. The mediator was a handsome man in his early forties. I stepped in and introduced myself as the accused husband’s relative and told him that since his parents were away, I wanted to accompany him. The CL’s crafty junior was sitting next to the accused husband.
The mediator explained to me that the complainant wife had been demanding Rs.30 lakhs as permanent alimony. Whereas, the husband had offered Rs.17.5 lakhs. I was bewildered. According to my last information, the offer was Rs.15 lakhs. According to the assurance of the CL’s junior, the opposite side was expected to accept this offer. I raised this question. Then, the junior explained to me. Apparently, the CL, in a bid to settle the matter had unilaterally offered Rs.17.5 lakhs, with the confidence that he could persuade the accused husband to pay the sum! To me this seemed rank recklessness.
I told the mediator, “according to our information on the previous occasion, we had been told that the opposite side would accept our offer of 15 lakhs, which is now hiked to 17.5 lakhs. If the gap was known to be as wide as another 15 lakhs, we would not even have considered mediation. There is just no way can the accused husband manage to meet that kind of demand. Even to pay Rs.15 lakhs, he still has to borrow another four lakhs”. I drew his attention to the statement of affairs drawn up by the accused husband.
At this, the plump woman lawyer, the wife of OL jumped to her feet, “You are making allegations against us! We have never agreed to 15 lakhs or 17.5 lakhs. You are trying to bring rift between us and the party!” I bluntly told her “Think whatever you like. The fact remains that on the previous occasion, your side clearly indicated that it was possible to settle the matter for 15 lakhs. With the huge gap of 15 lakhs, it would have been foolish even to agree to mediation! I am not changing my statement”. At this stage, the CL’s junior squirmed in his seat, fearing that I might reveal his little conversation with the OL.
The woman lawyer told the mediator contemptuously, “He is after all a relative. He has no business to interfere!” I told her, “Mediation is meant for parties and family members. It is not meant for lawyers”. I was in counsel’s dress at that time.
The mediator, quite an affable man, helped clam the tempers. At this stage, the complainant wife opened her mouth and revealed the degree of her greed. “If these people have no money to pay, let them write their house in my name!” I was astounded to hear this. Since I did not want to escalate the tempers by saying something sharp, I told the mediator, “This is a reckless demand. The house the accused lives in belongs to his mother. Accused husband does not own any movable property or immovable property. Other side cannot make this kind of baseless demand.” The wife muttered something about the husband's family being boastful about their wealth and living beyond their means. I told the mediator that such baseless and wild assertions cannot be taken into consideration for settling the dispute between the parties.
The complainant wife once again started the melodrama about joining the marital home, that she wanted to lead peaceful life with husband. But, she did not want to live with her in laws as she feared for her life. She wanted her husband to set up separate family. I firmly told the mediator that living together again was not at all an option, not after the humiliation faced by the family at the hands of the complainant wife by being arrested and sent to jail. If that was the main demand, this mediation would serve no purpose at all. I wondered how this educated wife did not appreciate her own contradictions. On the date of arrest, she told the police inspector to let off her in-laws and arrest the husband, as though she thought that the in-laws were angels and the husband a demon. Now, she was willing to live with this diabolical husband, but feared for life if she had to live under the same roof with the in-laws! But, then for someone whose judgment and intelligence are clouded by greed, logic is highly inconvenient.
I told the mediator and the other side lawyer, “At present, the husband is not earning any money. If the matter is delayed, his savings would also dwindle on account of living expenses and litigation expenses. There would be no significant money left for paying permanent alimony. No court can award alimony which is beyond the means of the petitioner in a divorce case.”
The complainant wife again asserted stridently, “I too have to look after my handicapped father. I do not have a project now. I am on the Bench. What should I do for future, if I accept their paltry offer? I cannot accept anything less than Rs. 30 lakhs!”. It was evident that she wanted this opportunity to solve all her life’s problems forever, a mercenary approach if there was ever one.
The mediator explained to the accused husband that he will consider the matter once again on Thursday, and in the meantime, both parties could find a meeting ground. He advised the accused husband that if he could conclude the matter by settlement, he could return to his job within next couple of weeks, as the conclusion of civil case would also mean that criminal proceeding would also be closed. That would be a part of mediation agreement. On that note, we left the mediation centre.
The accused husband was feeling very depressed. The adamancy displayed by the opposite side worried me too. If the demand remains beyond the means of the husband, there can be no conclusion of civil and criminal proceedings within four weeks. That would mean loss of job for the husband. How long can a person live on savings, and meet the expenses of litigation in two courts? Unfortunately, even his parents were not at hand to console him. They had to remain in exile until the anticipatory bail order was obtained.
Husband ready to throw in towel
That night and next day, we discussed the situation at home. The husband was feeling desperate to save his job. He blurted, “I am ready to borrow from my friends abroad. I can repay them within a few months, when I return to the job. I am prepared to pay 25 lakh rupees”. Since he had already booked his return journey to
That decided, we contracted the CL. After playing the usual elusive game of being not accessible, he spoke to us. He said, ‘You need not pay 25 lakh rupees. I will speak to the OL and settle the matter at Rs. 20 lakhs.” He sounded very confident.
Matter settled at mediation centre
On Thursday morning, the CL called me and told me that he had spoken to OL and told him “I am telling my client to make a final offer of Rs.20 lakhs. If your client does not accept it, you may do whatever you like. I will not participate in the negotiation.” I wondered what kind of ultimatum was this. If he did not participate in the mediation, it would be no skin off the nose of the opposite side! We would be constrained to take help of another counsel or plunge further on our own. The CL continued, “This threat has worked! OL called me a short while back, and has confirmed that his client has accepted the final offer of Rs.20 lakhs”. At last, there seemed to be some light at the end of the tunnel. I informed the accused husband about this development. He was smarter. Anticipating such development, he had already mobilized money, and transferred money from his foreign account to Indian account. He said, he could issue a crossed cheque for that sum!
In the afternoon, well before
The mediator, sensing my anxiety told us that we could finalise the details of settlement and commence drafting the mediation agreement-cum-petition which would be presented to the family court. It had to be signed by both the parties and their counsels. Once the details of settlement were known, he could dictate the document so as to save time. When he CL arrived, he could read and approve it and sign. We agreed to this sensible suggestion and met in a mediation room.
We were in agreement that the husband would pay the permanent alimony in full and final settlement of all claims and neither side would stake any claim against the other in future; that they would not interfere with each other in future; that divorce would be by consent of the party; that the criminal case commenced against the husband would be withdrawn. The other side added one more element “petitioner husband must withdraw all the allegations made in the divorce petition”. After conferring with the accused husband, I told the mediator that we had no dispute about withdrawing the allegations in the petition. Next, the other side wanted the money partly in cash. This I flatly refused. I firmly told that the cheque number, bank name, amount, and date must appear in the mediation agreement for the entire sum. Further, we did not want to run the risk of drawing and transporting cash. The other side did not persist with this demand. Next, there was some discrepancy in the name of complainant wife in the petition and in her bank account. It was agreed that mediation agreement would record the name in which the cheque was issued as abundant measure of caution. The accused husband wrote out the cheque for Rs.20 lakhs and gave it to the mediator.
Before leaving the mediation room, he mediator asked the complainant wife, whether she was satisfied with the settlement. He reasonably expected that at least out of politeness he would get a positive answer. But, her answer was a firm NO!
We again retired to our corners of the boxing room called mediation centre. At this stage, the CL made his grand entrance. We were waiting in the porch of the mediation centre in that rainy late afternoon. I took him to waiting room and explained the terms of settlement. Then I took him to mediator who was in a secretary’s room, dictating the mediation petition – cum – agreement. Short while later, after the draft was ready, we met again in the mediation room. Both sides read the draft checking each detail carefully. Thereafter, lawyers of both sides as well as the husband and wife signed the mediation agreement.
I asked how the criminal case would be solved. The mediator and the OL told us that soon after the divorce judgment, the complainant wife would appear in the magistrate court and withdraw the criminal petition. I looked for confirmation from the CL. He also agreed that this was possible. Since I was not certain of the procedure for withdrawing the case in a cognizable offence, I deferred to his wisdom. This was soon to become a major problem
The mediator gave it to the Centre's staff to affix seals, made copies and give one copy to each
On that note, we left the court complex, feeling satisfied that at least the civil side of the crisis was about to get settled.
Please note: One should read complete Part I till VI to understand the ground zero gravity of such criminal proceedings. Hence the necessasity of reproducing I to VI part series giving complete insight of Nobel and Learned Professionals and are anti – thesis of following Three Parts
Forum Home > Family Law > How to prove Section 498-A charges?
Forum Home > Family Law > What steps should be taken by the complainant to prove the c
