The Madras High Court, while deciding twin anticipatory bail applications in Crl.O.P.Nos.8329 & 7856 of 2025, delivered a strong critique of the growing trend of advocates acting as enforcers in civil property disputes. Justice Sunder Mohan, presiding over the matter, underscored that the profession of law must not serve as a shield for unlawful conduct, observing that “lawyers have acted as henchmen for the litigants” in the instant case.
The petitioners, Sushil Lalwani, Aarthi Lalwani (A1 and A2), and Advocate J. Vijayakumar (A4) sought protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 105 of 2025 registered at the Kannagi Nagar Police Station. The offences alleged include violations under Sections 329(3), 329(4), 115(2), 324(4), 324(5), 324(6), 351(3), and 61(2) of the BNSS and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The prosecution alleged that the accused orchestrated a forced entry into a disputed property in Karapakkam Village, enlisting a group of lawyers to evict employees of the de facto complainant, Marg Limited, under the pretext of an interim injunction granted by the District Munsif Court, Sholinganallur. The property in question, measuring approximately 65,836 sq. ft., is the subject of ongoing civil litigation. It was claimed that the accused not only trespassed and engaged in physical altercations but also destroyed CCTV equipment to obliterate potential evidence.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel contended that possession of the property had already been handed over in 2023 following execution of eight registered sale deeds and full consideration paid to the complainant. The alleged confrontation, they argued, was merely an attempt to assert lawful possession in link slot dana light of an existing injunction order in O.S.No.40 of 2025, dated March 5, 2025. It was further submitted that “the complaint is vague and bereft of details” and that “custodial interrogation is not required.”
In rebuttal, counsel for the de facto complainant submitted video and photographic evidence showing the group, including lawyers, forcefully entering the premises and “pushing the security guard.” The prosecution maintained that the legal fraternity was being misused as a cover for orchestrated criminal trespass, citing organized WhatsApp groups reportedly mobilizing lawyers for similar enforcement actions in property disputes.
Justice Mohan took note of this disturbing trend: “The lawyers have acted as henchmen for the litigants. They are expected to use the brain and not the brawn.” He went on to cite the Bar Council of India’s rules on professional conduct, specifically Rule 4: “An advocate should refuse to act in an illegal or improper manner towards the opposing counsel or the opposing parties.”
The Court highlighted the distinction between the civil dispute over ownership and the criminal allegations arising from the alleged use of force. “The question is whether the petitioners had forcibly entered into the property after obtaining an order of injunction in the civil Court,” the order noted. While acknowledging that the issue of possession remained sub judice, the Court observed that “lawyers identifying themselves with the litigants and indulging in such activities cannot be pardoned.”
Nevertheless, the Court found that custodial interrogation was not necessary in the present case. “The question before this Court is not whether an offence had been committed, but whether the actions or the offences committed by the petitioners, as alleged by the prosecution, warrant arrest and custodial interrogation.” Referring to settled jurisprudence, the Court added: “It is well settled that the arrest is not required in all cases.”
Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to maitri the petitioners, subject to stringent conditions. Among these, the accused were directed to appear before the investigating officer as and when required, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
Picture Source :
