Mere Legal Opinion Not Enough To Prosecute Advocate For Cheating Or Forgery: Bombay High Court

The bench held that the inquiry report did not disclose any material showing that the advocate had actively participated in fabricating documents or conspired to defraud the State. The Court observed that neither the complaint nor the Section 202 CrPC inquiry established that the petitioner was present during preparation of false revenue entries or execution of the impugned sale deed.

The Court also found that the trial court had mechanically permitted impleadment under Section 319 CrPC without examining whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made out against the advocate.

Justice Y. G. Khobragade observed, “There is no evidence that the present petitioner/accused was also present personally while preparing the bogus and false 7/12 extract of the said land or he was present at the time of execution of the alleged sale-deed. Therefore, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2320 and in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad, Vs. K. Narayana Rao, cited (supra), it cannot be held that, the present petitioner/accused is involved while committing the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 166 read with Section 34 of I.P.C”.

“The learned trial Court mechanically passed the order dated 30.11.2019, below Exh.12 in R.C.C. No.331 of 2008 and permitted to implead the present petitioner as accused in the original complaint and issued process against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.. Further, the learned Revisional Court passed the impugned judgment and orders dated 23-01-2012 in Criminal Revision No.139 of 2009 and 140 of 2009 and dismissed both the revisions without considering the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 166 read with Section 34 of I.P.C”, the bench further noted.

Advocate Mahendra B. Kolpe appeared for the petitioner, and V. M. Chate, APP appeared for the respondents.

In the present matter, a private complaint was filed in the year 2008 alleging that a restricted agricultural land in Osmanabad district was sold on the basis of forged revenue records and without obtaining mandatory permission under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.

During an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police had alleged that the sale transaction was carried out on the basis of legal advice given by the petitioner-advocate, leading to his impleadment as an accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 166 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Challenging the orders of the trial court and revisional court, the advocate contended that he had neither prepared nor tampered with revenue records, nor participated in execution of the sale deed, and that the allegations against him rested solely on the assertion that he had given oral legal advice to his client.

The bench thus relying on Supreme Court precedents, including CBI, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 on summoning advocates during investigation, reiterated that criminal liability of a lawyer arises only where there is evidence of intentional and active involvement in a fraudulent scheme, and not merely on the basis of professional advice.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the orders of the trial court and revisional court, and set aside the criminal complaint insofar as it related to the petitioner-advocate, holding that continuation of proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Cause Title: Sunil v. The State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:2612]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Mahendra B. Kolpe, Advocate.

Respondent: V. M. Chate, APP, Manish P. Tripathi, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment