Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Adarsh Kumar Goel and U.U. Lalit

JUDGMENT

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14^th October, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 3526 of 2015, thereby, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings initiated against the Appellant Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881('the Act').

2. The proceedings were initiated by the Respondent who is an advocate in whose favour the Appellant executed a cheque allegedly towards his fee. The same was dishonoured. The stand of the Appellant is that Section 138 of the Act is not attracted as there was no legally enforceable debt. The Appellant having already paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards fee, the cheque was taken from the Appellant by way of abuse of position and the transaction was void Under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ('Contract Act'). Claim for fee based on percentage of the decretal amount was unethical. It was submitted that the Appellant, as a client, being in fiduciary relationship, burden to prove that the fee was reasonable and had been voluntarily agreed to be paid was on the Advocate. The Advocate by using his professional position could not be allowed to exploit a client by taking signatures on a cheque and no presumption of enforceable debt arises, specially when no account maintained in regular course of business was furnished.

3. Reference may be briefly made to the facts on record. The Appellant's husband died in a motor accident on 30^th July, 1998. She along with her children and parents of the deceased filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) through the Respondent as an advocate. The MACT awarded compensation. The Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards fee on various dates. However, the Respondent forced the Appellant to sign another cheque of Rs. 3 lakh on 25th October, 2014 despite her stating that she was unable to pay more fee as she had no funds in her account. The Respondent sent e-mail dated 2^nd November, 2014 claiming his fee to be 16% of the amount received by the Appellant.

4. Complaint dated 11^th December, 2014 was filed before the Court Under Section 138 of the Act stating inter alia that the cheque which was issued in discharge of liability having been returned unpaid for want of funds, the Appellant committed the offence for which she was liable to be punished. The Appellant was summoned by the Court against which she approached the High Court stating that there was no legally enforceable debt as fee claimed was exorbitant and against law. The claim was in violation of Advocates Fee Rules and Ethics as fee could not be demanded on percentage of amount awarded as compensation to the Appellant. Her signatures were taken when she was under distress.

5. The petition was contested by the Respondent by submitting that the Appellant having agreed to pay the professional fee and having availed his prof........