No litigant or lawyer needs to argue their case with folded hands before any court as the judges are doing their constitutional duties and obligations, Kerala High Court has said while quashing an FIR against a 51-year-old woman.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan said that even though courts are known as temples of justice, there is no God sitting in the bench.
In an order issued on October 9, the high court had asked litigants and lawyers to keep decorum while arguing cases in courts. The observation came after Ramla Kabeer, a petitioner in a case, in which she herself argued, appeared before the court with folded hands and tears in her eyes.
“First of all, no litigant or lawyer need argue their case with folded hands before a court of law because it is their constitutional right to argue a case before a court of law. Usually the court of law is known as temple of justice’. But there is no god sitting in the bench. The judges are doing their Constitutional duties and obligations. But the litigants and lawyers should keep the decorum of the court while arguing the case,” the court observed.
The matter was in connection with a petition filed by the woman seeking to quash an FIR registered against her saying she allegedly abused a police official of Alappuzha district multiple times.
The court observed that the incident is unbelievable in our society as citizens always respect the police.
“Therefore, the District Police Chief should conduct an inquiry about the registration of this case against the petitioner (woman) and if there is any default on the part of the de facto complainant (police officer), appropriate steps should be taken in accordance with law,” the order said.
The high court then quashed the Alappuzha local court’s proceedings against her.
Also Read
Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that the offences under Sections 294 (b) (uttering obscene words) and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code were not made out in the facts and circumstances of this case.
“Moreover, I am of the prima facie opinion that the FIR itself is a counterblast to the complaint submitted by the petitioner (woman),” the court said.
The woman had in 2019 approached the district police chief with a complaint of noise pollution against a prayer hall of a religious sect in her neighbourhood that was allegedly performing/playing high decibel prayer songs.
The woman claimed that the concerned police officer was directed to look into the issue and when she called him to enquire about the progress, the officer allegedly abused her.
The court also noted that the FIR against her was registered after she moved a complaint with the district police chief.
