In a strongly worded order, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to quash criminal proceedings against a 69-year-old senior advocate accused of cheating a complainant of ₹1.68 crore by posing as a land broker, expressing shock over the lawyer’s conduct and dismissing his plea to settle the matter through refund.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan remarked that the case did not merit any leniency, observing, “It is not a case for settlement. You may be a lawyer, but your conduct is outrageous. You should face trial and get convicted.”
The Court was hearing a special leave petition filed by senior advocate R. Manickavel, challenging the Madras High Court’s April 30 order dismissing his plea to quash the criminal case initiated against him.
According to the charges, Manickavel posed as the agreement holder of a property originally owned by another individual and offered it for sale at ₹3.25 crore. Over multiple transactions, the complainant paid him ₹1.68 crore without ever being introduced to the original owner of the land.
The situation raised suspicion when the complainant insisted on meeting the title holder. Instead of facilitating the meeting, Manickavel allegedly asked the complainant to pay the balance amount if he had confidence in him or take back the advance already paid.
When the complainant requested a refund, Manickavel reportedly repaid only ₹40 lakh. Subsequent verification revealed that the original owner had already settled the property in favour of her legal heirs, with whom Manickavel had no valid connection. When further pressed for repayment, Manickavel and a co-accused allegedly refused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences.
The complainant had lodged a police complaint in 2011. The case eventually led to the filing of a chargesheet by Chennai Police in 2023, which was taken cognizance of by the Egmore Magistrate. The senior advocate’s attempt to quash the case in the Madras High Court was rejected earlier this year, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
The apex court was unequivocal in its criticism, stating, “A senior advocate is doing brokering. He is doing land transactions through his clerk. He collected Rs 1.68 crore and refused to refund. This is shocking. He even got his intern, a law student, involved in this act. And all this is happening in a senior advocate’s chamber.”
With these remarks, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, clearing the way for trial proceedings to continue against the accused.
