P L D 2026 Supreme Court 75

 P L D 2026 Supreme Court 75

Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Shakeel Ahmad and

Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ

Syed BASIT HYDER TAQVI---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Petition No.39-K of 2025, decided on 30th June, 2025.

(Against the judgment/order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the High Court

of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Bail Application No.2105 of 2024).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.

489-F---Dishonoring of cheque---Bail, grant of---Counsel and client

relationship---Non-payment of professional fee charges---Breach of

contract---Complainant was advocate and accused was his client who

paid professional charges in shape of cheque which was dishonoured

on presentation---Held: If client failed to make full fee payment, the

amount could be recovered through civil remedies---Initiation of

criminal case against one s own client could only be considered in

exceptional circumstances where no other remedy was available---

Failure to pay for service, such as legal representation, does not

necessarily result in penal consequences---State of consciousness that

is culpable is the essential component of criminal liability---

Dishonestly issuing a cheque is punishable with up to three years

imprisonment under section 489-F, P.P.C. and the offence necessitates

rigorous examination---Alternative remedies were available under

civil law, such as claim for compensation for loss or injury resulting

from breach of contract under section 73 of Contract Act, 1872 and suit

for recovery under Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Provision of section

489-F, P.P.C. is intended to function as a safeguard against fraud, rather

than as a blade to enforce civil recovery---Mens rea (dishonest intent)

must be established in order to incur penal consequences and criminal proceedings under 489-F, P.P.C. must not be used as a substitute for

civil remedies---Bail was allowed.

2023 SCMR 1948 and 2013 SCMR 51 rel.

Abbad-ul-Hussnain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through

V/L from Karachi)

Khadim Hussain, A.P.G., Sindh for the State.

Assisted by: Mahnoor Omer, Law Clerk.

Date of hearing: 30th June, 2025.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---Through the instant

petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of

Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner Syed Basit Hyder

Taqvi has assailed the impugned order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the

High Court of Sindh at Karachi whereby his petition for concession of

pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant:

Mustafa Hussain lodged an FIR stating that he is an advocate by

profession and he was owed a professional fee in Special Case

No.215/2015 by Syed Basit Hyder and Syed Ameer Hyder. The accused

issued him cheque of three million while remaining 45 lacs through

three other cheques which were sent to him through WhatsApp. The

complainant is aggrieved by the dishonor of cheque No. 22308272 in

the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- and three other cheques in the amount of

Rs. 15.00.000/- that were issued by the accused for the purpose of

fulfilling an outstanding financial obligation with respect to the

payment of professional fees.

3. The matter before us concerns whether an advocate may initiate

criminal proceedings against a client for failure to pay outstanding

professional fees, particularly with reference to Section 489-F of the

Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.). In addressing this question, the Court

must consider the sanctity of the counsel-client relationship, the

principle of privileged communication, and the legal implications that

flow from the non-payment of fees by a client.

4. It would be pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted a copy of the judgment dated November 7, 2024,

in Constitution Petition No. D-2230 of 2024, which was passed by the

learned High Court of Sindh. The judgment details the cases lodged by

the Advocates against their clients, indicating the aforementioned

trend. This is a significant development that necessitates immediate attention. The AIGP Legal report that was submitted to the High Court

is reproduced below:

REPORT OF FIRs LODGED BY THE ADVOCATES/ LAWYERS AGAINST

(A) THEIR CLIENTS (B) THIRD PERSONS (C) POLICE OFFICIALS 

FROM 01.01.2024 TO 31.10.2024

S. NO District

Against

Their

Clients

Against

Third

Persons

Against

Police

Officials

Total

1 CIA - - -

2 CTD - ‑ - -

3 East 3 73 1 77

4 Malir 3 106 2 111

5 Korangi 2 31 1 34

6 West 8 1 9

7 Central 1 14 - 15

8 South - 32 - 32

9 City 5 185 4 194

10 Kemari - - -

11 Hyderabad 26 1 27

12 Dadu 1 2 3

13 Thatta 6 - 6

14 Badin 2 - 2

15 Jamshoro 9 - 9

16 Matiari - -

17 T.A. Yar 1 - 1

18 T.M. Khan 6 - 6

19 Sujawal - -

20 Sukkur 6 - 6

21 Ghotki 17 1 18

22 Khairpur 20 - 20

23 Larkana 9 - 9

24 Kamber 9 - 9

25 Shikarpur

26 Jacobabad 2 - 2

27 Kashmo re - - ‑

28 Mirpurkhas - 1 1

29 UmeerKot 2 - 2

30 Tharparkar - -

31 SBA 10 - 10

32 Sangha r 6 - 6

33

Naushero

Feroz

- -

Total 581 14 609

5. The aforementioned data is not only alarming but also impedes

the efficient administration of justice. The entire judicial system would

undoubtedly collapse as a result of such a trend. The effective

administration of justice is contingent upon the establishment of a

relationship between counsel and client that is based on trust, mutual

respect, and confidentiality. Throughout the world, the profession of

advocacy is regarded as a noble profession, and it is incumbent upon

each member of the bar to uphold the highest standards of

professional integrity, confidentiality, and values. The Pakistan Legal

Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and its implementing rules

have been established to safeguard this sacred relationship and

maintain the purity of the legal profession. These regulations also

mandate a high level of professional integrity, confidentiality, and

values. Rule 155 of The Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils

Rules, 1976 reads as under:

Rule 155. Controversies with clients concerning compensation are to

be avoided by the advocate so far as shall be compatible with his

self-respect and with his right to receive reasonable recompense

for his services. Any law suits with clients should be resorted to

only to prevent injustice, imposition or fraud.

Similarly, American Bar Association Model Code of Professional

Responsibility says as under:

EC 2-23. A lawyer should be zealous in his efforts to avoid

controversies over fees with clients and should attempt to

resolve amicably any differences on the subject. He should not sue a client for a fee unless necessary to prevent fraud or grass

imposition by the client.

Likewise, Article 9 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 reads as

under:

Art.9. Professional communications: No advocate shall at any time

be permitted, unless with his client's express consent to disclose

any communication made to him in the course and for the

purpose of his employment as such advocate, by or on behalf of

his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document

with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the

purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any

advice given by him to his client in the course and for the

purpose of such employment: Provided that nothing in this

Article shall protect from disclosure?

(1) any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal

purpose; or

(2) any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his

employment as such showing that any crime or fraud has been

committed since the commencement of his employment,

whether the attention of such advocate was or was not directed

to such fact by or on behalf of his client.

6. The counsel-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, as indicated

by the combined reading of the aforementioned legal provisions. Any

attempt to violate this trust by requiring a counsel to disclose

privileged information or to initiate criminal proceedings against a

client would be inconsistent with the principles of justice and fairness.

In general, counsel is prohibited from initiating criminal proceedings

against a client for non-payment of legal fees, as these disputes are

civil in nature. The professional conduct emphasizes the ethical

resolution of fee disputes through civil remedies or dispute resolution

processes. In order to prevent ethical violations, conflicts of interest,

or reputational damage, counsel must exercise caution. Abuse of

process is defined as the use of criminal proceedings or threats to

secure payment. Lawyers are permitted to withdraw from

representation for non-payment of fees after providing reasonable

notice; however, they are prohibited from employing the prospect of

criminal action to exert pressure on the Client.

7. It is important to note that in the present instance, if the client

has failed to make the full fee payment, the amount may be recovered

through civil remedies. However, the initiation of a criminal case

against one's own client should only be considered in exceptional

circumstances where no other remedy is available. A failure to pay for a service, such as legal representation in this instance, does not

necessarily result in penal consequences. A state of consciousness that

is culpable is the essential component of criminal liability. Dishonestly

issuing a cheque is punishable with up to three years' imprisonment

under section 489-F of the P.P.C., and the courts have consistently

maintained that this offense necessitates rigorous examination.

Alternative remedies are available under civil law, such as a claim for

compensation for loss or injury resulting from breach of contract

under section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 and a suit for recovery

under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The 489-F of the P.P.C. provision

is intended to function as a safeguard against fraud, rather than as a

blade to enforce civil recovery. Mens rea (dishonest intent) must be

established in order to incur penal consequences, and criminal

proceedings under 489-F, P.P.C. must not be used as a substitute for

civil remedies. (Reliance on 2023 SCMR 1948 and 2013 SCMR 51).

8. Before parting, it is necessary to acknowledge a worrying pattern

that has come up. Increasingly, small groups of lawyers have begun to

treat the criminal process as a tool for exerting pressure rather than as

a mechanism for justice. Lawyers are not only representatives of their

clients but also officers of the court and servants of the public interest.

This dual role requires a careful balance between protecting a client's

rights and upholding the integrity of the justice system. Unfortunately,

recent practices show that this balance is at times being lost, for

instance, when advocates pressurize the police into lodging FIRs and

act as pressure groups on matters that are essentially fee disputes or

other civil controversies, thereby converting private disagreements

into criminal cases. This practice corrodes professional standards,

undermines public trust in the black coat, and, when coupled with a

lack of careful scrutiny by law enforcement agencies, further erodes

respect for the justice system. The credibility of the Bar rests not on

the force it can apply, but on its adherence to law, ethics, and the

confidence the public continues to place in it.

9. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into

an appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is

admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of

Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

the Trial Court.

MH/B-4/SC Bail allowed.