LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-383

RAJESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

Decided On January 23, 2023
RAJESH SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF NCT DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 458 of 2022 dtd. 3/9/2022 under Ss. 419/177/209 IPC. P.S. Dwarka, South District, New Delhi.

(2.) The background facts are that the petitioner is a 3rd year law student pursuing his LLB from Jagmohan College of Law, Masuri, Link Road, Khekra, Baghpat affiliated with Choudhary Charan Singh University of Meerut. In the year 2012, petitioner completed his graduation and thereafter in the year 2020, he joined his LLB course at the said college. In the month of August 2022, after completion of 2 years of LLB course, the petitioner joined Abhay RajVerma, Advocate who is practicing before various District Courts in Delhi, as an intern for two months. The petitioner used to accompany Advocate Verma in day to day Court hearings to gain experience. He always attended Court in white shirt and black pants but never wore Advocate robes and never represented himself as an Advocate.

(3.) However, on 31/8/2022, Advocate Verma was out of station and his client, Shri Satbir Singh was not well due to which there was no one available to attend the Complaint Case bearing No. 4218 of 2020 pending before the learned MM-07, South West Dwarka, New Delhi. Advocate Verma gave him instructions to appear before the Court as an intern and he accordingly apprised the Court that neither Advocate Verma nor the client could appear and sought an adjournment on their behalf. When the petitioner appeared before the Court and stated so, he was queried by the learned MM that whether he was appearing as main counsel or proxy and in his nervousness, he submitted that he was a "proxy". He was under the mistaken impression that a "proxy" is somebody who seeks an adjournment and was not sure about the ramifications of the same. The petitioner was then asked about his identity by the learned MM and gave his law student identity card. The petitioner was not wearing any band or lawyer robes at that point of time.