MP HC Quashes Land-Dispute FIR Against Advocate And E-Stamp Vendor, Finding No Evidence Of Knowing Involvement

The complainant alleged that land records had been manipulated and that persons claiming through those records had transferred the land.

The allegations against Petitioner No. 1, an advocate who had represented the complainant and his family in a revenue appeal, concerned an application to withdraw that appeal allegedly bearing forged signatures. Petitioner No. 2, a stamp-paper service provider, was alleged only to have issued stamp paper later used for an allegedly fabricated agreement

After an initial order directing registration of an FIR was set aside and the matter remanded, a police enquiry reported no specific material against the petitioners. The Magistrate nevertheless directed registration of an FIR, and the revisional challenge was dismissed. The petitioners then sought quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS

The Commissioner’s unchallenged order disposing of the appeal recorded the appellants’ personal appearance and their statement that the parties had settled.

Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court and secure the ends of justice; quashing is to be exercised sparingly, but may be warranted where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose an offence or continuation would constitute an abuse of process

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 338 and 336(3) of the BNS, and held that professional or vocational acts alone do not establish criminal participation, conspiracy, knowledge or intention without supporting material.

Relying on Hiralal Jain v. Delhi Administration, the Court applied the principle that an advocate’s ordinary professional acts do not, absent evidence of prior knowledge or an antecedent agreement, establish a prima facie case of conspiracy.

It also referred to Ranjit Singh Bath v. Union Territory, Chandigarh for the requirement that a Magistrate apply judicial mind rather than direct investigation mechanically.

The Court found no material that Petitioner No. 1 forged or prepared the signatures, knew of any alleged forgery, or agreed with the other accused to commit an offence. His alleged conduct was filing an application in the course of representing clients; moreover, the Commissioner’s unchallenged order recorded the appellants’ personal appearance and settlement, which had to be considered alongside the allegation about the withdrawal application

As to Petitioner No. 2, the record alleged only that she issued stamp paper; it did not indicate that she prepared or executed the agreement, forged a signature, or knew of any fabrication

The original complaints and subsequent police enquiry disclosed no specific incriminating material against either petitioner, reinforcing the conclusion that the allegations lacked a sufficient factual foundation to continue the prosecution

The Court therefore held that continuation based solely on their professional or vocational activities would be an abuse of process

It allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 141/2026 and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioners only

The order did not affect proceedings against other accused persons or determine the merits of the allegations against them or the independent title dispute