### Advocate cannot be held criminally liable for performing professional duties of drafting sale deeds.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate at the Patna Civil Court, was named as an accused in a criminal complaint (Case No. 2217(C) of 2016).

The complainant alleged that the petitioner provided professional services by drafting a sale deed for a land transaction that was subsequently discovered to involve property already sold to another party.

On January 20, 2017, the Sub Judge XIV cum A.C.J.M., Patna, took cognizance of the matter against the petitioner.

During the inquiry, the complainant reiterated these facts, but two other inquiry witnesses failed to name or implicate the petitioner.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance order, arguing he acted solely in his professional capacity.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against an advocate for the mere act of drafting a legal document constitute an abuse of the process of law when no further criminal intent is alleged.

2. Whether the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner under the guidelines governing the inherent powers of the High Court.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which grants the High Court inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

The court relied on the landmark precedent State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), specifically the "seven categories" of cases where quashing is justified, including instances where allegations in the FIR/complaint do not constitute an offence even if accepted as true, or where proceedings are maliciously instituted.

The Court observed that the only allegation against the petitioner was the extension of professional services—specifically, drafting a sale deed—in his capacity as an advocate.

The Court noted that the trial court took cognizance in a "mechanical manner" despite the fact that inquiry witnesses (EW 1 and EW 2) did not attribute any wrongdoing to the petitioner.

Applying the first three principles of the Bhajan Lal case, the Court reasoned that the uncontroverted allegations failed to disclose the commission of any offence by the advocate, as professional drafting does not equate to criminal conspiracy or fraud regarding the title of the land.

Exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and following the "golden principles" 1, 2, and 3 of Bhajan Lal, the High Court quashed the cognizance order dated January 20, 2017, as it pertained to the petitioner.

The trial court was directed to be informed of the judgment immediately.