Lawyer Ashutosh Rana talks about his first court experience and how it prepared him for his future rodeos
As a newly minted lawyer, fresh out of law school, my first experience attending a bail hearing was nothing short of enlightening. I had heard from seasoned colleagues that this judge was particularly strict and did not easily grant bail, adding a layer of intensity to the proceedings.
“The court recognized that the primary dispute was civil, and there was no need for custodial interrogation.”
1. Case Background
The cases concerned a contractual dispute misrepresented as a criminal offense. The applicants were charged under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIRs were lodged based on claims that, upon closer inspection, were civil rather than criminal in nature.
2. Courtroom Experience
In the courtroom, I watched in awe as my senior colleagues presented their arguments with precision and clarity. They contended that the matter was fundamentally a civil dispute and did not warrant criminal proceedings. This was a critical point because it underscored the misuse of criminal law in matters that should be resolved through civil litigation.
Key Arguments
HDFC Bank Limited vs. J.J. Mannan: This case reinforced that civil disputes should not be treated as criminal offenses unless there is clear fraudulent intent.
Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi: This judgment highlighted that civil matters should remain within the civil judicial framework, avoiding the unnecessary escalation to criminal proceedings.
Mere Recovery Disputes: They cited Bharosi Devi vs. State of Haryana, arguing that mere recovery disputes do not justify denying anticipatory bail. This was a compelling point, demonstrating that the case at hand was essentially a recovery issue dressed as a criminal matter.
Precedent Cases:
The mitigation phase is where you’ll look at how you can reduce the harm to those who have been affected by the breach. For instance, if the breach involved a leak of financial information, it might mean offering free credit monitoring for a year or two.
3. Outcome
Despite the judge’s reputation for being stringent, my seniors’ precise and well-articulated arguments convinced the court to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. The court recognized that the primary dispute was civil, and there was no need for custodial interrogation. The judge emphasized that criminal law should not be used as a tool for exerting undue pressure in civil disputes.
4. Reflections
This experience was a profound learning opportunity for me as a new lawyer. It underscored the importance of clear, precise arguments and a deep understanding of legal provisions and precedents. It also highlighted the crucial role of the judiciary in distinguishing between civil and criminal matters to prevent the misuse of legal processes.
5. Conclusion
The cases of Krishan Kumar Jajoo, Monica Jajoo, and Chandresh Jajoo versus State of Haryana serve as essential reminders that civil disputes should be resolved through appropriate legal channels, safeguarding against the misuse of criminal law. As I continue my journey in the legal profession, this experience will undoubtedly serve as a cornerstone in my understanding and practice of law.
For more insights on recent legal developments and judgments, follow our LinkedIn page. Stay informed and stay ahead in the legal landscape.
RUDRA LAW FIRM
Expertise. Integrity. Commitment.
Feel free to contact us for any legal advice or consultation.
Note: This blog is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal queries, please consult a qualified attorney.
