The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, presided over by Justice Ravi Chirania, has dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against a man accused of impersonating a lawyer in court proceedings. Holding that non-advocates cannot represent themselves or practise in courts without formal enrolment under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court refused to entertain the petitioner’s plea and slapped him with costs of Rs. 50,000.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Surendra Singh (40), a resident of Didwana Kuchaman district, approached the High Court invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash FIR No. 180/2025 dated May 31, 2025, registered at Makrana Police Station for an offence under Section 319(2) of BNSS, 2023.
According to the FIR, Singh, despite not being an advocate, had entered appearances before trial courts in certain matters and had also filed various documents across different cases. The conduct was eventually brought to the notice of the courts concerned. On one occasion, when Singh was appearing before one of the courts below, practicing advocates attempted to apprehend him; however, he managed to escape by scaling the boundary wall of the court premises. Subsequently, the criminal case was registered against him on a complaint by Amra Ram.
Submissions of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, his counsel contended that Singh had not committed any offence whatsoever. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had never presented himself as an advocate nor performed any work exclusively preserved for advocates in court. After arguing at length to justify the petitioner’s actions, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the quashing petition. However, the High Court declined to permit the withdrawal.
During the hearing, the Court sought the assistance of Senior Advocate Mr. Anand Purohit, a former President of the Bar Association, to interact with the counsel appearing for both sides and ascertain the facts. After the post-lunch reconvening, the Senior Advocate informed the Court that upon hearing both versions, the petition deserved to be dismissed with costs.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon reviewing the record, hearing the submissions, and perusing the contents of the FIR, the Court observed that the petitioner had indeed impersonated a legal professional and filed documents in judicial proceedings. The bench held:
“No person can be permitted to practise as an Advocate or represent himself as an advocate unless until he is duly enrolled with the respective Bar Council of State in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.”
Addressing the petitioner’s sudden attempt to abandon the petition during the hearing, the Court noted:
“So far as the present case is concerned, upon noticing the observations made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner made prayer seeking withdrawal of the present petition. The said conduct further affirms the allegations made in the impugned FIR.”
The Decision
Finding no merit or ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 50,000.
The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the costs within a period of one month with the Rajasthan High Court Advocate Clerks Association. The matter has been posted for compliance on October 6, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4744/2025
Bench: Justice Ravi Chirania
Date: 25/08/2026
