Appearing For Co-Accused Son Not Fraud On Court: MP High Court Discharges Advocate In Cheating Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a practising advocate who was accused of committing fraud upon the court by appearing as counsel for his son, a co-accused in a criminal case, holding that neither suppression of facts nor any offence of cheating was made out against him.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf allowed the criminal revision filed by advocate Suresh Prasad Khare and set aside an order of a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, which had refused to discharge him in a complaint case arising from allegations that he had misled the court while representing his son Rupesh Khare in quashing proceedings.

The court observed that the essential ingredients of cheating and fraud were absent and held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the advocate was unsustainable in law.

The dispute originated from an FIR registered in 2017 at Jatara Police Station in Tikamgarh district for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. While the case was initially registered against Rupesh Khare, Suresh Prasad Khare was later implicated as a co-accused.

Both accused persons separately approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. During the hearing of a petition filed on behalf of Rupesh Khare, Suresh Prasad Khare appeared as his counsel. A Single Judge subsequently raised concerns over the maintainability of the petition and the advocate’s appearance in the matter despite being a co-accused himself. Proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were directed, ultimately leading to a complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 417 IPC.

Appearing for the petitioner, Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava argued that no fraud had been committed and that the complaint itself was legally untenable. He contended that the petition filed on behalf of Rupesh Khare had been instituted before the dismissal of the petitioner’s own quashing petition and therefore there could be no allegation of suppression of that dismissal order. He further submitted that the Bar Council of India Rules only prohibit an advocate from appearing in a matter where he is likely to be a witness and do not bar an accused from appearing as counsel for a co-accused.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the High Court, Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, argued that the petitioner had knowingly concealed material facts and improperly appeared on behalf of a co-accused despite being an accused in the same criminal case.

Examining the record, the Division Bench found that the allegation regarding suppression of the dismissal of the petitioner’s earlier quashing petition was factually incorrect. The court noted that the petition filed for Rupesh Khare had been instituted on January 14, 2019, whereas the petitioner’s own quashing petition came to be dismissed only on March 19, 2020.

“The allegation of suppression of the fact of dismissal of earlier petition preferred by co-accused is misplaced,” the Bench held.

The court further rejected the contention that the petitioner had committed fraud merely by appearing as counsel for his son. Referring to Rule 13 of the Bar Council of India Rules, the Bench observed that the provision only restrains an advocate from accepting a brief where he has reason to believe he may be a witness on a material question of fact. It does not prohibit a co-accused from appearing as counsel.

“Said Rule does not prohibit any co-accused to appear in a case as counsel. We are unable to accept that by appearing on behalf of co-accused in the capacity of counsel, petitioner played a fraud upon the court,” the judgment stated.

The Bench also noted that the State Bar Council had already dropped disciplinary proceedings against the advocate in February 2023 after concluding that no prima facie case of professional misconduct existed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

Holding that Section 195 CrPC did not apply to offences under Sections 417 or 420 IPC and that no offence of cheating was disclosed, the court concluded: “He deserves to be discharged from the aforesaid offence.” Consequently, the order refusing discharge was set aside and the criminal proceedings pending against the advocate were quashed.

Case Title: Suresh Pradsad Khare v. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: May 22, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf