The petitioner, an advocate, filed a criminal writ petition challenging orders impleading him as an accused in a land fraud case under IPC sections -- The original complaint alleged fraudulent sale of agricultural land without required permissions under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 -- The petitioner argued that he only provided legal advice to clients and was not involved in document fabrication -- The High Court examined the inquiry report under Section 202 of CrPC and found no prima facie evidence of the petitioner's direct participation in the alleged offences -- Applying legal principles, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, holding that legal advice alone does not constitute criminal liability under IPC
Criminal Law-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Sections 202 and 319-- Indian Penal Code, 1860-- Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166 and 34-- Creation of bogus and false extract 7/12 of land-- Defrauding the government by tampering revenue record-- Execution of sale deed by respondents/accused no. 1 to 3 in connivance of accused no.6 who was revenue officer-- Report u/s 202 of CRPC submitted by IO-- Petitioner is a practising lawyer-- Process issued to the petitioner by the court of Ld. Magistrate for impleading as an accused u/s 319 of CRPC-- Aggrieved--Revision filed by the petitioner before session court-- Dismissal of revision-- Aggrieved-- Challenged-- Legal advise given by the petitioner lawyer to accused no. 1 to 3-- Main conspirator/respondent no 3 to 5 were died-- Report u/s 202 of CPRC did not disclose that the petitioner who was legal practisioner was directly involved while preparing false 7/12 extract of land-- No written legal advise given by the petitioner to prepare a false document-- No evidence that the petitioner was present at the time of preparing bogus and false 7/12 extract-- Impugned order of impleading the petitioner as an accused was set aside-- Complaint qua petitioner quashed-- Petition allowed
Para-- 12, 15, 16, 17
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, and set aside the impugned orders dated 23.01.2012 passed in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 139 of 2009 and 140 of 2009
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 88
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 178 of 2012
Date of Decision: 2026-01-22
Case Title: The Issue of whether criminal proceedings against an advocate for offences under IPC based on legal advice given to clients can be sustained in the absence of prima facie evidence of direct involvement in fraudulent acts
Before Judge: Y. G. Khobragade, J.
Advocate(s): Mr. Mahendra B. Kolpe, Mr. V. M. Chate, Mr. Manish P. Tripathi
Appellant: Sunil s/o Shamsundar Hedda
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra, Anil s/o Panditrao Deshmukh, Naresh Nanakchand Agrawal, Timma s/o Somanna Wadar, Ambubai w/o Shankar Dangar, Yusuf s/o Farid Mulani, Shidheshwar s/o Shankar Konale, Janardhan Dattatraya Kulkarni, M. M. Ghatekar, Balaji s/o Somnath Idagote
Nature of Litigation: Criminal writ petition challenging impleadment as an accused in a land fraud case
Remedy Sought: The petitioner sought quashing of the complaint and impugned orders from lower courts
Filing Reason: The petitioner was impleaded as an accused based on allegations of giving legal advice that facilitated fraudulent land transactions
Previous Decisions: The Judicial Magistrate First Class directed inquiry under Section 202 of CrPC and permitted impleadment of the petitioner -- The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed revision applications challenging these orders
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences under IPC can be sustained based on legal advice given to clients Whether the inquiry report under Section 202 of CrPC establishes prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences
Submissions/Arguments: The petitioner argued that he only provided legal advice and was not involved in tampering revenue records or fabricating documents The petitioner contended that the inquiry report did not show his direct participation in the fraudulent acts
Ratio Decidendi: Mere legal advice by an advocate does not constitute offences under IPC such as cheating, forgery, or using forged documents -- For impleadment as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC, prima facie evidence of direct involvement in the alleged offences is required -- The inquiry report under Section 202 of CrPC failed to establish such evidence against the petitioner
Judgment Excerpts: The Report u/s 202 of Cri. P. C. submitted by the Investigating Officer disclosed that, the present petitioner accused gave legal advise to his client 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.
Procedural History: Original complaint R.C.C. No. 331 of 2008 filed in 2008 -- Inquiry under Section 202 of CrPC directed on 12.02.2009 -- Petitioner impleaded as accused on 30.11.2009 -- Revision applications filed and dismissed on 23.01.2012 -- Criminal Writ Petition No. 178 of 2012 filed in 2012 -- Reserved on 17.01.2026, pronounced on 22.01.2026
