Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against Advocate Accused Of Submitting Forged Document, Cites Client Instructions

Mumbai: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court observed that a lawyer’s actions are often shaped by instructions received from their client, while quashing an FIR against an advocate accused of submitting a forged document in court while furnishing bail for her client.

A bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin Patil quashed an FIR noting: “A considerable amount of direct control is exercised by the client over the manner in which an advocate renders his services during the course of his employment.”

An FIR was registered at Ram Nagar Police Station, Chandrapur, stating that the lawyer submitted a tax receipt as surety in the bail proceedings of an accused, Lavkush Umesh Nishad, who was arrested in an alleged theft case. Upon verification, it was found that the tax receipt was allegedly not genuine, and that the name in the Gram Panchayat records did not match the surety’s details.

However, the Court noted that, apart from the claim that the applicant acted “in connivance with the co-accused,” there were no specific allegations that she fabricated or manufactured the document herself.

Highlighting the duties of advocates, the Court observed, “The Advocate represents the client before the court and conducts proceedings on behalf of the client. He is the only link between the court and the client. He is expected to follow the instructions of his client rather than substitute his judgment.”

The Court emphasised that advocates have fiduciary duties towards their clients and are bound to act as per the client’s instructions. “A considerable amount of direct control is exercised by the client over the manner in which an advocate renders his services during the course of his employment,” the bench said, adding that the relationship is akin to a contract “of personal service.”

Referring to the allegations, the bench noted, “It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant prepared such a fake certificate or is involved in the act of fabrication. Thus, considering the role of an advocate towards the court and client, it is evident that the applicant submitted the documents as per the instructions of her client.”

Concluding that even if the allegations were taken at face value no offence was made out against the applicant, the bench quashed the FIR against the lawyer.

news