ORDER : S. Vaidyanathan, J. : "This case is a perfect illustration for the deceitfulness exhibited by an Advocate/ petitioner herein towards his client without bothering about his professional etiquette." Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theni, who issued a summon under Section 91 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 IPC in Crime No.Not Known of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner has come forward with this petition, seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police. 3. The facts leading to lodging of a criminal complaint against the petitioner are as follows: (i) The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and the defacto complainant's husband, namely, Palanisamay, approached the petitioner for filing a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gobichettipalayam for the injuries sustained by him, as he met with an accident at 08:40 on 08.11.2014, while walking on the road, due to the rash and negligent driving of a two wheeler rider and gave a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner towards initial expenses and the amount of compensation claimed was Rs.5,00,000/-; (ii) In the meanwhile, the husband of the defacto complainant died on 03.03.2015 and therefore, his legal heirs were impleaded in the claim petition and the same was transferred to MACT/ Additional District Court at Periyakulam and renumbered as MCOP No.74 of 2016 and when the Insurance company filed its counter, they came to know that the injury claim was settled in the Mega Lok Adalat itself even on 14.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as full quit, without their consent and the award amount was also not given to them and that this petitioner, being an Advocate, representing them before the Tribunal, played a major role in settling the matter before Mega Lok Adalat independently and defrauding them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the guidance of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, Mega Lok Adalat is being conducted every month for the past three years and after getting concurrence from the respective parties along with their signature/thumb impressions, cases are posted before the Mega Lok Adalat for pre negotiation with various insurance companies and transport corporations. The claim petition filed by the defacto complainant's husband was the one, which was listed before Mega Lok Adalat for settlement and on the particular day, the petitioner herein settled more than 80 cases by way of pre negotiation. She would further submit that as per the Terms of Lok Adalat, the award amount should be given to the respective parties and in this case also, the agreed amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as full quit was paid by the TATA AIG General Insurance Company, Coimbatore directly to the claimant within 30 days by way of Cheque and therefore, the question of handing over the cheque to the Advocate does not arise. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, contending that there was a big conspiracy and collusion in depositing the award amount of Rs.1,20,000/- into the deceased/ defacto complainant's husband account and drawing it through back door by throwing dust in the eyes of his legal heirs. She further urged that unless or until the petitioner is subjected to custodial interrogation, the real factum cannot be unearthed. 6. The petitioner is said to have settled the claim of an injured on 14.03.2015 and accepted the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-as full quit as against the claim of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The death certificate dated 23.03.2015 of the injured/ Palanisamy has been produced before this Court, which reveals that the said Palanisamy died as early as on 03.03.2015. When an injured died on 03.03.2015, certainly, there could not have been a possibility of settlement before the Mega Lok Adalat on or after the said date. In proof of concurrence for settlement and receipt of the award amount before the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, an undated receipt was produced, in which purported left hand thumb impression of the deceased has been duly affixed along with a copy of the cheque leaf. The details of the cheque has been furnished in the receipt, which shows that the cheque is dated 24.03.2015, which, according to the petitioner is a post dated cheque. Even assuming that the receipt is not a bogus one, it does not contain any particulars regarding case number and date and therefore, genuineness of the said receipt is highly doubtful. The details of the cheque has been furnished in the receipt, which shows that the cheque is dated 24.03.2015, which, according to the petitioner is a post dated cheque. Even assuming that the receipt is not a bogus one, it does not contain any particulars regarding case number and date and therefore, genuineness of the said receipt is highly doubtful. It is astonishing to note that when the receipt itself is sufficient for the proof of payment, what necessitated either to the Insurance company or the person handing over the Cheque to obtain left thumb impression on the xerox copy of the cheque, which doubly creates doubts in the mind of this Court. Even assuming for the sake of argument that endorsement would be taken on the xerox copy of the cheuqe to comply with the usual formality, it is imperative that in case of non appearance of the claimant, his legal heirs ought to have been brought on record so as to apportion the amount among them after due enquiry. 7. The normal procedure being followed in case of pre negotiation settlement is that the respective parties should appear in person and sign the proceedings, which is not done in this case. This Court is unable to understand as to how the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam has handed over the original cheque without verifying his/ her authenticity. The cheque has also been deposited in the account of the deceased after his demise and the same has been withdrawn, which itself is a serious crime. However, the Principal District Judge, Erode has replied to the questions posed under RTI Act, sent in the name of Palanisamy. Though relevant questions have not been adduced before this Court, to the Question No.4, it has been replied as under: xxx xxx xxx (No cheque has been issued to the petitioner Thiru.Palanisamy, S/o.Senthaiapandian through Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam)" 8. The defacto complainant has averred in the complaint that nobody instructed the Advocate/petitioner to settle the matter before the Mega Lok Adalat for such a meagre amount. 9. It is stated that the petitioner has settled as many as 80 cases on the particular day, which has got to be thoroughly enquired into, for which, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is predominant. 10. The duties of a lawyer to the Court arise from the relationship, which he has with the Court as an officer in the administration of justice. 10. The duties of a lawyer to the Court arise from the relationship, which he has with the Court as an officer in the administration of justice. Law is not a mere private profession, but is a profession, which is an integral part of the judicial system of the State. As an officer of the Court, the lawyer should uphold the dignity and integrity of the Court and must exercise at all times respect for the Court, in both words and actions. He must present all matters relating to his client's case openly and must avoid any attempt to exert private influence upon either the judge or the jury. He should be frank and candid in all dealings with the Court as well as with his clients. The obvious truth is that the lawyer owes a high duty to his profession and to his fellow members of the Bar. His profession should be his pride, and to preserve its honour should be among his chief concerns. An Advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person, who is not a member of the Bar. 11. In the present case on hand, the conduct of the petitioner/Advocate has brought disrespect to the entire legal fraternity. The defacto complainant has already lost her husband and is stated to have been struggling to lead her day to-day life and to add fuel to it, the petitioner has also deceived her in collusion with others. If an act creates disrespect to his profession and he feels that he is unfit for the profession, it is advisable to stop his practise on his own in order to safeguard the interest of the profession and the institution so as to become a role model to other members of the Bar. 12. There are bundle of contradictions in the case and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are like constrictor knot, which can be untied through his custodial interrogation only. 12. There are bundle of contradictions in the case and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are like constrictor knot, which can be untied through his custodial interrogation only. The name of the Bank, in which the deceased has an account and the award amount has been deposited and subsequently withdrawn, has not been given and it is also not known as to how the Bank allowed a third party to draw such a huge amount without permission of either the account holder or his nominee. Therefore, an easy inference can be drawn that there must be a collusion between the Bank Officials, the petitioner and others into the alleged crime. Therefore, taking note of the serious nature of the offences alleged as against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Note: Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for necessary action, along with xerox copies of the following: (1) petition for anticipatory bail (2) affidavit of the petitioner dated 28.11.2016 (3) death certificate of Palanisamy (4) Undated receipt said to have been filed before the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam (5) the cheque dated 24.03.2015 drawn on Axis Bank (6) RTI letter dated 05.11.2016 of the Principal District Judge, Erode.