Bombay High Court: While considering a criminal application filed by a practicing Advocate seeking protection against criminal proceedings under penal provisions of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy, the Single Judge Bench of Sandesh D. Patil, J., recorded the applicant’s contention that criminal liability cannot be foisted upon an advocate for an alleged wrong legal advice or opinion rendered by him. Accordingly, the Court granted adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause “b”, restricted to the applicant, and adjourned the matter.
Also Read: Foreign counsel cannot examine witnesses before Advocate Commissioner: Ker HC
The applicant, through counsel, submitted that he is a practicing Advocate and that he had merely given an opinion in the matter. According to the applicant, criminal liability had been foisted upon him on account of his alleged wrong legal advice or opinion. In support of the submission, he relied on CBI v. K. Narayana Rao, (2012) 9 SCC 512, and Surendra Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2020) 18 SCC 730. On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel sought time to file an affidavit-in-reply in the matter.
The Court directed that the matter be stood over to 17 July 2026. Pending further consideration of the matter, the Court granted adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause “b” and clarified that such adinterim relief was granted only qua the applicant.
Also Read: SC: IBA Can’t Use Caution List for Blacklisting Advocate
[Dipak Gurushantappa Takalki v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 11 of 2026, decided on 3-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Ritesh M. Thobde a/w Darshan Singh Rajpurohit, Divyashree Dhumal and Changdev Shingade.
For the State: Avinash A. Naik, APP.
For Respondent 2: Pradeep Salgar.
