Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikash Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14793
1 MCRC-35928-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35928 of 2018
VIKASH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Devdatt Bhave - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner
seeking quashment of order dated 21.08.2018 by which an application
moved by present petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been turned
down.
2. Counsel for petitioner contended that present petitioner, who is a
Lawyer by profession is being subjected to prosecution on the strength of
First Information Report dated 06.05.2014. It is contended by the counsel
that one Narayan Kewat, who was accused in a case registered vide Crime
No.43/2012, was enlarged on bail by order passed by this Court in MCRC
No.4748/2014 dated 16.04.2014. After grant of bail to said Narayan Kewat,
the steps were taken for furnishing bail and the present petitioner was
contacted by surety as well as other relatives of Narayan Kewat. At that time,
the present petitioner while submitting papers filed an affidavit which is
contained in Annexure A/1 and in the affidavit it was submitted by present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14793
2 MCRC-35928-2018
petitioner that original accused Narayan Kewat was enlarged on bail by this
Court vide order dated 16.04.2014 passed in MCRC No.4748/2014. Apart
from said, in the proceedings, present petitioner, identified the person namely
Vaijanth Kewat, who stood as a surety. It is contended by the counsel that
present petitioner was introduced to the surety by the relatives of Narayan
Kewat and accordingly, present petitioner was not aware that Vaijnath
Kewat, who was identified by present petitioner, was not the real person
while submitting documents on behalf of surety and when he came to know
about this immediately moved an application before Court concerned and it
was prayed that bail order in respect of Narayan Kewat be cancelled as
present petitioner was kept in dark and he in a bona fide manner incorrectly
identified a person, who had already died.
3. It is also contended by the counsel that Brijnandan Kewat, who was
son of Vaijnath Kewat projected himself to be Vaijnath Kewat and stood as a
surety for Narayan Kewat. The application of present petitioner was taken
cognizance of and trial Court rejected the bail granted to Narayan Kewat vide
order dated 06.05.2014 and as it was a case of impersonation, at the behest of
Vrahaspati Kewat, under the instructions of trial Court, the offence against
all was registered including the present petitioner also. The present petitioner
was implicated on the allegation that he was the person, who had identified
the impersonator in the order sheet. The petitioner then moved an application
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and prayed before the Court that charges
against him be dropped as he was not at all involved in the conspiracy nor
was guilty of forging any document. He being a Lawyer in bona fide manner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14793
3 MCRC-35928-2018
identified the surety as he was brought by the relatives of Narayan Kewat,
who was enlarged on bail. It is contended by the counsel that in such
circumstances, a Lawyer cannot be implicated if he has wrongly identified
the person, who stood as a surety for Narayan Kewat.
4. The reliance is placed on the decision of this Court passed in the
case of Narayan Prasad Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC
No.9772/2017 dated 27.07.2018 , and also the judgment passed by this Court
in the case of Dashrath Prasad Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in 2016 SCC OnLine MP 8066 . Counsel has also placed reliance on
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel vs.
the State of Gujarat passed in Criminal Appeal No.661/2025 on 11.02.2025 .
5 . Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
and submitted that in the present case petitioner, who was not known to the
person, who was going to stand as a surety yet identified him and as the
person for whom the impersonator stood as surety had already expired two
months back, it was evident that present petitioner despite being stranger to
the person ventured upon to identify the same. It is contended by the counsel
that such act was unbecoming of a Lawyer and present petitioner was
required to deal with the proceedings of the Court with clean hands, whereas
the present petitioner was negligent and accordingly, case in question was
registered. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14793
4 MCRC-35928-2018
7. Perusal of record reflects that petitioner's implication is based on the
fact that he identified the impersonator, who stood as a surety to get the
original accused Narayan Kewat released on bail. Perusal of record also
reflects that so far as present petitioner is concerned, he is not guilty of
forging any document. The affidavit contained in Annexure A/1 only reflects
the factum of grant of bail to Narayan Kewat by this Court in MCRC
No.4748/2014. There is an affidavit of Vaijnath Kewat and in the said
affidavit, the photograph of impersonator is affixed. The said impersonator
was in fact son of deceased Vaijnath Kewat and prima facie it reflects that
the petitioner was introduced to impersonator by other relatives, therefore,
said person was identified as such in the order sheet while bail was being
extended to Narayant Kewat.
8. The factum of identification by the Lawyer has been taken note of
by the Apex Court in the case of Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel (supra) wherein it
has been held as under:
"9. When a litigant claiming to be a power of attorney
holder of others, approaches a member of the Bar and
shows him the original power of attorney and engages
him to file a case, the Advocate is not expected to get
the genuineness of the power of attorney verified,
unless he has a reasonable doubt about its genuineness.
In this case, the appellant has not purported to file the
tenancy case bearing signatures of Somiben Maganbhai,
who was allegedly dead. The signature on the tenancy
application and below the verification clause was of the
power of attorney holder. Even the signature on the
vakalatnama of the appellant is of the power of attorney
holder."
9. Subsequently, this Court in the case of Dashrath Prasad Chaudhary
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14793
5 MCRC-35928-2018
(supra) also considered this aspect of the matter as under:
"8. On perusal of the police diary, it is found that the
role of the petitioner/advocate has been very limited in
this case and he has identified Gotani Choudhary as
Hetram. No other evidence is available on the record to
have forged any document or to conspired to cheat
anyone for wrongful gain. It is worth mentioning here
that the accused Gotani has been serving in SECL,
Anuppur since 1983. The pan card and other documents
alleged to have been issued to Gotani Choudhary
showing as Hetram. Therefore, on the basis of these
documents, the present petitioner if identified, it could
be possibly done with bonafide intention. The petitioner
had no intention to identify an impersonator.
9. While invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr. P.C. in the case of Sundarlal
Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. reported as 2013 SCC
OnLine MP 10481, this Court has held that the
petitioner/advocate was not the impersonator nor
committed any forgery before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class. The petitioner is a practicing
lawyer, if the order passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge and consequent registration of crime remain
continued against the petitioner/advocate, the same
would be abuse of process of the Court, therefore, the
same is liable to be quashed.
*****
11. In the case of Heera Lal Jain v. Delhi
Administration reported as (1973) 3 SCC 398 , a full
Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that " Where
the only charge against the appellant was of conspiracy
under Section 120-B IPC and in the commitment
proceedings the prosecution produced only
documentary evidence and no oral evidence was given
and there was no prima facie evidence in respect of this
charge, the documentary evidence only showing that the
appellant made applications on behalf of the other
accused, that be filed their vakalatnamas and that he
identified them as the real claimant, it cannot be said
that the appellant did anything beyond what a lawyer is
authorized to do in a Court of law. In the absence of
any evidence to suggest that he had previous knowledge
of the fact that the accused were not the rightful
claimants whom he identified as such and there was no
evidence whatsoever that they was any concert between
him and the other accused antecedent to the filing of the
applications and vakalatnamas in Court by him and on
the contrary there are circumstances showing his
bonafides, it cannot be said that there is prima facie
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14793
6 MCRC-35928-2018
evidence for the offence of conspiracy against him.
12. In the present case also there is no evidence to show
that there is nexus between the petitioner and the
accused Gotani who impersonator himself at the time of
executing the affidavit, as the accused Gotani was
already in the service of SECL since 1983 almost for
about 30 years.
13. Keeping in view that the petitioner's profession as a
lawyer, to identify the persons, the basis of several
documents the petitioner identified him as Hetram. The
possibility of the petitioner not having any suspicion on
these documents and believed him to be Hetram cannot
be ruled out."
10. This Court again in the case of Narayan Prasad Garg (supra) has
held as under:
"5. In the case of Khuman Singh Rajput (supra) a
coordinate Bench of this Court has held that without any
evidence to show that the petitioner was a part of
conspiracy with the other accused persons, it cannot be
said that the petitioner has committed any offence
alleged against him.
6. In this regard, in the decision in the case of Hiralal
Jain v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1972 SC 2598 it has
been held as follows:
"The real charge against him is that of conspiracy under
Section 120B IPC But there is no prima facie evidence
in respect of this charge. The documentary evidence
only show that the appellant made applications on
behalf of the other accused, that he filed his
vakalatnama and that he identified them as the real
claimants.
It is well known that the main income of many lawyers
in the District Courts is derived from the work of
identifying persons and sureties in the Courts.
The other accused must have told the appellant that they
were the real claimants. He believed them and agreed to
act for them. It seems to us that he did nothing beyond
what a lawyer is authorised to do in a Court of Law.
There is no evidence to suggest that he had previous
knowledge of the fact that the accused were not the
rightful claimants. Again, there is no evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14793
7 MCRC-35928-2018
whatsoever that there was any concert between him and
the other accused antecedent to the filing of the
applications and vakalatnamas in Court by him. In the
absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that there is
prima facie evidence for the offence of conspiracy
against him.
In our view the circumstance of the appellant being
engaged by the accused for their identification is no
incriminating evidence for the offence of conspiracy."
11. The aforesaid law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court
reflect that factum of identification by Lawyer in such type of cases has been
taken note of and it has also been observed that in such cases prima facie
there are no allegations of any forgery or conspiracy.
12. So far as Lawyers are concerned, they are implicated only in view
of fact that they had identified the surety, who stood for accused to get him
released on bail. The aforesaid decisions clearly reveal that unless and until
there is accusation of forgery of document and apparent cheating, the
implication of Lawyer, who stood as a surety in a purely bona fide manner is
impermissible.
13. The case in hand is also that the petitioner identified the person,
who impersonated Vaijnath Kewat, the said person was his own son.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid law laid down by this Court, this Court
is of the considered view that the trial Court erred in passing the impugned
order dated 21.08.2018.
14. Accordingly, order dated 21.08.2018 is set aside and the
application filed by petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
FIR of Crime No.467/2014 registered at Police Station Waidhan, District
Singrauli and the entire proceedings of ST No.181/2014 stand set aside so far
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14793
8 MCRC-35928-2018
as they relate to present petitioner. The petitioner stands discharged from the
aforesaid charges. The bail bond and surety bond, if any, stand discharged.
15. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
