The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that advocates cannot be unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases merely for rendering a legal opinion, in the absence of tangible evidence connecting them with the alleged conspiracy. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 268]

While quashing criminal proceedings against a panel advocate of Shriram Finance Limited, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela emphasised that prosecution must be supported by legitimate grounds and incriminating material connecting the advocate with the alleged offences.

The Court was hearing a criminal petition filed by the advocate seeking to quash proceedings against him in a case involving alleged fraudulent documents used to obtain a loan from Shriram Finance Limited. The Court observed:

“There is no res integra to the legal position that the advocates, when acting as panel advocates or standing counsels on behalf of the banks, cannot be unnecessarily implicated in criminal proceedings without legitimate or genuine cause against them regarding misappropriation, and in the absence of such incriminating allegations, the advocates cannot be roped into criminal proceedings and put the criminal case in motion against them.”

The allegations stemmed from documents submitted to Shriram Finance Limited to obtain a loan. The petitioner, a practising advocate at Tadepalligudem, was accused of colluding with the property valuer to certify the documents as genuine and facilitate the loan.

The case involved allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The proceedings were pending before the trial court when the advocate approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him.

He argued that the charge sheet contained no specific allegation against him, apart from the assertion that he and the valuer had certified the documents as genuine. He submitted that he had verified the documents against the records maintained by the Sub-Registrar of Assurances before rendering his legal opinion. He further contended that the officials of the finance company were required to scrutinise the documents in the first instance before placing them before the advocate for an opinion.

Opposing the plea, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that a witness had described a premeditated plan to cheat the finance company, allegedly carried out with the active support of the valuer and the advocate.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court questioned why Shriram Finance Limited, as custodian of the documents, had approached the police instead of getting them verified by the competent authorities, including the Revenue and Registration Departments.

The Court further noted that the documents had been checked against records available with the District Registrar of Assurances before the petitioner rendered his opinion. It held that the opinion had to be assessed within the contours of law.

The Court relied on the principle that an advocate cannot be prosecuted merely because the legal opinion rendered is disputed, in the absence of tangible evidence linking the advocate to the alleged conspirators.

“Such opinion need to be construed within the contours of law and the genuinity of the opinion has to be considered as legal”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the advocate.

It directed the Magistrate to continue the trial against the remaining accused and conclude it as expeditiously as possible. Pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Madhava Rao Nalluri

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor