BCI Rules Do Not Prohibit Advocate-Accused From Representing Co-Accused: MP High Court Quashes Cheating Case
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against an advocate who had appeared on behalf of his son in a criminal matter in which both were arrayed as accused, holding that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit a co-accused advocate from representing another accused. The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against an advocate who had appeared on behalf of his son in a criminal matter in which both were arrayed as accused, holding that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit a co-accused advocate from representing another accused.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed;
"Rule 13 of Bar council of India referred to above is under a section “Duty to Client” and not under Section – I “Duty to Court”. Said Rule does not prohibit any co-accused to appear in a case as counsel. We are unable to accept that by appearing on behalf of coaccused in the capacity of counsel, petitioner played a fraud upon the court".
The case arose from an FIR registered for cheating (Section 420) and common intention (Section 34) of IPC upon complaint of Shailesh Kumar against Rupesh, son of the petitioner. The petitioner, who is a practising advocate, was later added as a co-accused.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved an MCRC seeking to quash the FIR, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out and the investigation was still incomplete.
During the pendency of this petition, Rupesh, the petitioner's son, also filed for quashing the FIR, which was heard on April 27, 2022. The petitioner appeared as the counsel for his son and argued the matter. Later, the single judge initiated proceedings and issued a show-cause notice for "committing fraud with the court". The single judge also noted that the petitioner failed to disclose that his petition had already been dismissed.
After summons were issued, the petitioner sought discharge, which was rejected by the Magistrate in September 2025. The order was challenged before the Division Bench.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that when the petition on behalf of his son was filed in January 2019, his own petition had not yet been dismissed and that the dismissal came later in March 2020. Therefore, there was no suppression of material facts.
The counsel further asserted that Rule 13 of the Bar Council of India Rules only bars an advocate from appearing in a matter where he is likely to become a witness on material questions of fact. The rules, per the petitioner, do not prohibit an advocate who is a co-accused from representing another accused.
Accepting the submissions, the bench observed that the allegations of suppression were 'misplaced', noting that the son's petition had been filed before dismissal of the petitioner's own quashing petition.
The court further noted that Rule 13 of the BCI Rules falls under the category of duty to clients and merely restrains an advocate from accepting a brief where he has reason to believe he may become a witness. The rule does not prohibit a co-accused from appearing as counsel for another accused.
The court further took note of the fact that the State Bar Council had already dropped disciplinary proceedings against the advocate in February 2023 after concluding that no prima facie case of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocate Act was made out.
Thus, the bench directed;
"In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that no offence of cheating is made out against the petitioner, who is a practising advocate and appeared on behalf of a co-accused (his own son) as counsel in a quashing petition. He deserves to be discharged from the aforesaid offence and consequently, the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed in RCT No. 9808/2022 by the learned magistrate dismissing the application under Section 227 CrPC is set aside. The criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioner in RCT No.9808/2022 are quashed".
Thus, the court allowed the revision petition.
Case Title: Suresh Prasad Khare v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR No. 5561 of 2025
For Petitioner: Advocate Anuvad Shrivastava
For MP High Court: Advocate Sandeep Kumar Shukla