In a significant affirmation of the sanctity of legal representation and professional immunity of advocates, the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, has quashed the notice dated 11.03.2025 issued to Advocate Mr. Rahul Maheshwari under Sections 91 and 160 of the CrPC by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Indore. The Court's decision was based on the compelling submissions advanced by Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Advocate-on-Record, who represented Mr. Maheshwari with distinction.

 

Background of the Case

The proceedings arose from Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 30532 of 2024, originally filed by M/s Praram Infra through its partner, seeking a fair and independent investigation into FIR No. 1197 of 2023 registered at P.S. Banganga, Indore under Sections 409, 420, and 406 of IPC. The Hon’ble High Court had earlier directed the investigation to be transferred to an officer not below the rank of DCP while reprimanding errant officers for procedural lapses.

Shockingly, on 11.03.2025, a notice was issued to Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, who had only acted as legal counsel for the complainant in the matter, requiring him to appear before the police and furnish specimen signatures—merely for having issued a Reply to a Legal Notice on behalf of his client.

 

The Challenge and Legal Stand

Mr. Lahoti filed I.A. No. 2313/2025 on behalf of Mr. Maheshwari challenging the said notice, arguing that:

• The issuance of such summons was unprecedented, illegal, and a gross violation of the Advocates Act and Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, which protects privileged communications between an advocate and their client.
• Forcing an advocate to furnish specimen signatures and testify regarding communications made in a professional capacity struck at the very heart of the right to legal representation, client confidentiality, and the administration of justice.
• If such notices were permitted, every practicing lawyer in the country could be exposed to harassment merely for carrying out their duties diligently and in good faith.

Mr. Lahoti emphasized that such acts of overreach not only obstruct the functioning of advocates, being an officer of Court, but also amount to contempt of court, calling for judicial reprimand and remedial action against the erring officer.

 

Judgment and Impact

In a strongly worded and detailed order dated 27.03.2025, Hon’ble High Court held that:

“…this Court is of the considered opinion that when the notice itself, purported to be issued u/s.160 of Cr.P.C., ought not to have been issued in the first place, as the same cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law, there was no reason for the DCP to state that presently Mr. Maheshwari’s statement is not required… It is nobody’s case that the Advocate concerned, Mr. Maheshwari, had made the communication in furtherance of any illegal purpose, in-fact he was representing the complainant only and not the accused, and that too after the transactions had already taken place between the parties, thus, he was not a witness in the case, and could not have been summoned u/s.160 of Cr.P.C.”

The Hon’ble Court:

• Quashed the notice dated 11.03.2025 in clear terms, despite it having been subsequently withdrawn by the police.
• Imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the intervener (accused), who had attempted to justify the notice.

 

Significance of the Verdict

This judgment is a watershed moment in reaffirming the independence of the legal profession and protecting advocates from executive overreach. It recognizes the essential role of lawyers in the justice system and shields them from being dragged into litigation or criminal investigation merely for performing their professional duties. It also serves as a stern reminder to police officers to act within the bounds of law and to uphold the dignity of the legal process.