By Legal Correspondent

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has ruled that a legal practitioner cannot be prosecuted for offences of cheating or forgery solely on the basis of offering legal advice to a client.

In a significant judgment protecting advocates from being implicated in the criminal acts of their clients, Justice Y. G. Khobragade quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate, observing that there was no evidence of his active participation in the alleged conspiracy.

### The Background

The case stemmed from a private complaint (R.C.C. No. 331 of 2008) filed regarding the fraudulent sale of agricultural land (Gat No. 472) in Osmanabad. The complainant alleged that the land, which had restricted ownership under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, was sold by creating false documents and without necessary permissions from the District Collector.

Initially, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Tuljapur, directed a police inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The police report submitted in July 2009 implicated the petitioner-advocate, Sunil Hedda, stating that the illegal sale transaction was executed based on his “legal advice”.

Consequently, the trial court permitted the impleadment of the advocate as an accused for offences under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), and 166 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The advocate’s subsequent revision applications were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge in 2012, prompting the present writ petition.

### The Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that as a legal practitioner, he merely provided oral advice to his clients (the original accused). He contended that the police inquiry report did not attribute any specific role to him regarding the tampering of revenue records or the creation of false 7/12 extracts.

The defense relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao, which established that an advocate’s liability arises only if they are an active participant in a conspiracy to defraud.

### The Court’s Observations

Justice Khobragade examined the inquiry report and found that while it mentioned the transaction was done on “legal advice,” it failed to establish the advocate’s direct involvement in the crime.

The Court noted the following key deficiencies in the prosecution’s case:

No Active Participation: The inquiry report did not disclose that the advocate was present while the false 7/12 extracts were prepared or when the sale deed was executed.

Absence of Written Advice: There was no evidence of any written legal opinion issued by the petitioner advising the creation of bogus documents.

Lack of Nexus: The allegations did not show that the advocate aided the original conspirators in tampering with the land records.

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court observed:

“Therefore, merely the petitioner / accused allegedly given legal advise, it does not constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.”

The Court held that the trial court had “mechanically” issued process against the advocate without considering the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

### The Decision

The High Court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition, setting aside the 2012 orders of the Revisional Court and the 2009 order of the Magistrate. The complaint bearing R.C.C. No. 331 of 2008 was quashed specifically as against the petitioner-advocate.

Case Details:

Case Title: Sunil s/o Shamsundar Hedda v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case No: Criminal Writ Petition No. 178 of 2012

Bench: Justice Y. G. Khobragade

Date of Judgment: January 22, 2026   Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Mahendra B. Kolpe

Counsel for State: Mr. V. M. Chate, APP