Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Against Advocate, Finds He Was Falsely Implicated For Representing One Of The Accused

The Gujarat High Court recently quashed an FIR against an advocate, after noting that the CCTV footage reflected that he was not present at the place where he had allegedly threatened the complainant. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170]

The advocate claimed that the complainant had falsely implicated him as he represented one of the accused in the case lodged by complainant. 

The complainant on the other alleged that the advocate had threatened him on the third floor of the Sessions Court. It was further alleged that the advocate had conspired with few persons and inflicted injuries with sword on the head of the complainant.

The advocate was accordingly booked under IPC Sections 307(Attempt to murder), 326(Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 325(Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 324(Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 143(unlawful assembly), 147(Punishment for rioting), 148(Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149(common object), 506(2)(criminal intimidation) and 120B(criminal conspiracy). 

Justice PM Raval however observed that the complaint against the advocate was falsified from the CCTV footage collected.

"...after indulgence of Hon'ble High Court, the Investigating Agency could lay their hands on the CCTV footages where the present applicant is not found 'present' in the passage / balcony on the third floor in Court premises. Therefore, the very initiation of the FIR on the ground that the present applicant threatened the complainant at 10:00 O'clock when he was present to meet his friend Vijay @ Abdul who was to be brought by the police party is falsified.

So far as criminal conspiracy is concerned, the Court observed the advocate being in touch with the co-accused before the alleged incident can't be viewed in isolation of the fact that he was the counsel for the co-accused.

"...Therefore, contacting his client on phone, in no terms can be said that he had criminal conspiracy,"it said.

The petitioner argued that merely because one of the accused was being represented by him, the petitioner's name has been arraigned as an accused with an oblique motive. This, when he had never met the complainant at the Court premises, nor was he present at the alleged place of offence and as soon as he came to know about lodging of FIR and his name being wrongly implicated, he immediately made representations to the police. 

The State argued that question of criminal conspiracy is to be tested during the trial since there cannot be direct evidence to that effect. It was submitted that the statement of the co-accused would reflect that it is at the instance of the petitioner that the accused were called and were asked to see that the complainant is taken at task by the co-accused persons.

"In view of the material collected by the Investigating Agency and forming part of the charge-sheet and in absence of any corroborative material and in the fact of the contrary facts surfacing on record by way of CCTV footage which has been collected during investigation, the complaint except for criminal conspiracy would be vague and general allegations to see that the present applicant representing one of the accused with prosecution is pressurized. This would amount to an abuse of process of law coupled with the fact that material relied upon by the Investigating Agency itself falsifies the case of the prosecution qua the present applicant," the court said. 

The FIR was thus quashed. 

Case title: MOHAMMAD BILAL GULAM RASUL KAGAZI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 211 of 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 170