Bombay High Court: In the present case, the applicant, a practicing lawyer, along with her client, was accused of forging a document for her client’s bail and thus, a case was registered with the Police Station Ram Nagar, Chandrapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 236 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Division Bench of Anil S. Kilor and Pravin S. Patil, JJ., stated that whatever documents the client gave to the applicant to submit in the court, the applicant submitted the same as per the client’s instructions. The Court quashed and set aside the FIR and opined that the advocate was expected to follow the instructions of her client rather than substitute her judgment as she was the only link between the court and the client.
Non-applicant 2, working in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, lodged report with the Police Station, stating that the applicant submitted certain documents for furnishing bail for his client-accused. It was alleged that the applicant furnished tax receipt of House No.80, Gram Panchayat Devala Khurd, Panchayat Samiti Pombhurna of the surety, Ramesh Rajkumar Lonare, but on verification, it was found that in the record, instead of the surety’s name, the applicant’s father’s name-Rajkumar Maroti Lonare was recorded. The Gram Panchayat clarified that the alleged tax receipt submitted by the surety was not issued by the Gram Panchayat Devada. Therefore, it was alleged that the applicant in connivance with the surety forged the document and dishonestly submitted the same as a genuine document and misled the Court.
The Court stated that except the allegation that the applicant in connivance with the co-accused, who was the surety in the said proceeding committed the alleged offence, there were no other allegations, and it was not alleged that the applicant had fabricated/manufactured the document or she helped the co-accused in the act of fabrication/preparing fake document.
The Court opined that the advocate had certain duties to the courts, to the client, to the opponent and to the colleagues as stated in the Bar Council of India Rules. Further, the advocates were perceived to be their client’s agents and owe fiduciary duties to their clients and were fastened with all the traditional duties that agents owe to their principals.
The Court also opined that advocates must respect the client’s autonomy to make decisions at a minimum, as to the objectives of the representation and the advocate represented the client before the court and conducted proceedings on the client’s behalf. The Court opined that the advocate was the only link between the court and the client, and he was expected to follow the instructions of his client rather than substitute his judgment. A considerable amount of direct control was exercised by the client over the manner in which an advocate rendered his services during his employment and the services hired or availed of an advocate would be that of a contract “of personal service”.
The Court noted that it was not alleged that the applicant prepared such a fake certificate or he was involved in such an act with the surety who produced the said certificate. Thus, the Court after considering the role of an Advocate in such matters, particularly towards the court and his client, opined that in the present case whatever documents the client had given to the applicant to submit in the court, the applicant submitted the same as per the instructions of her client.
The Court opined that even if the allegations were taken on its face value, no offence could be constituted and thus, the FIR registered with the Police Station was quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant.
[Sarita v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application [APL] No. 195 of 2025, decided on 5-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for Applicant.
For the Non-Applicants: Nikhil Joshi, APP for Non-Applicant 1/State.