Judicial process should not be used to harass litigants: HC

Observing that existence of courts is only to dispense justice and that the judicial process should not be used to harass litigants, the Madras High Court today dispensed with personal appearance of two accused in a cheque bounce case and allowed their lawyer to appear for them.
Allowing their criminal revision petition, Justice S Vaidyanathan made this observation and said insistence on appearance of the parties before the Court is needed only if it becomes absolutely necessary for some purpose.
Dispensing with their personal appearance before Egmore Fast Track Court here,the judge said a perusal of the order appeared to show it has dismissed the petitions only with a view that they were filed to drag on proceedings.

He said he failed to understand this view, especially when counsel had given an undertaking on his clients' appearance.
The judge said he found as reasonable the ground cited by petitioners for their inability to appear in court, which was that they are busy businessmen and had to frequently travel abroad and look after day-to-day affairs of their company. They had sought appearance of their counsel to represent them.
The matter relates to petitions filed by Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Amul Garbani against the order of the FTC, which refused to dispense with their personal appearance.

KEI Industries, Delhi, had moved the FTC, seeking to punish petitoners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for allegedly dishonouring of cheques. The complaints were taken on file. Pending trial, the petitioners moved FTC, praying for exemption from personal appearance.

On August 11, 2015 the FTC dismissed their petitions on the ground they were absent on previous hearing dates and that counsel's petitions was only with the intent to prolong the case.
The petitioners then moved the HC.
The Judge, who allowed counsel to appear on behalf of his clients, said it was always open to FTC to insist on the presence of the petitioners/accused if it felt it was essential as also for effective disposal of the case.
Justice Vaidyanathan made it clear that if counsel fails to represent his clients on the ground of boycott, that court was at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

He said the present attitude of some lawyers going on illegal strikes, giving boycott calls and even indulging in unruly behaviour were becoming a frequent spectacle. No lawyer has a right to abstain from court without first returning the briefs to clients and refunding their fees, he said.
Lawyers boycotting courts for one reason or other should not ignore the fact that there are several pending cases. Their act would lead to a travesty of justice and destroy the basic democracy, which would be tantamount to failure of administration of justice, he said.