Advocates cannot be prosecuted for forgery or atrocities solely for representing clients and seeking evidence.

The petitioner, an advocate, was arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 94/2024

The complainant (Respondent No. 2), an Assistant Conservator of Forest, alleged that the petitioner, while representing her opponents in matrimonial and criminal litigations, misused the Right to Information Act to obtain her caste details and school records

She further alleged that the petitioner and others forged her signature on a letter sent to the Forest Minister and were monitoring her movements to cause her harm

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR registered under Sections 336(2), 336(3), and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The court applied Section 336 of the BNS, which defines forgery as the making of a false document with intent to cause injury or fraud

It further applied Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which penalizes intentional insult or abuse by caste name in a "place within public view"

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Karuppudayar v. State [p. 19] and Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State [p. 21], which established that a private house or chambers without the presence of the public does not constitute a "place within public view."

The court invoked the "acid test" from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding the quashing of FIRs that lack basic legal ingredients

The court observed that the petitioner’s involvement was limited to his professional capacity as an advocate filing RTI applications to retrieve school records for a matrimonial case

The court found that the complaint lacked any specific overt act or intent by the petitioner to forge documents under Section 336 BNS, characterizing the allegations as "loosely laid" and "shrouded in mystery"

Regarding the SC/ST Act, the court noted the absence of any allegation that the petitioner hurled abuses in a "place within public view," as the interactions described occurred within private or professional spheres without public witnesses

The court critically analyzed the trend of impleading advocates, noting that exposing lawyers to criminal prosecution for discharging professional duties has a "paralyzing effect" on the independence of the Bar

The Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 94/2024 against the petitioner (Accused No. 4) while clarifying the order does not bind other accused

The Court unequivocally admonished the complainant for the reckless misuse of criminal process against a member of the Bar