JUDGMENT :

[Anish Dayal, J.]

1. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 458 of 2022 dated 3rd September 2022 under Sections 419/177/209 IPC. P.S. Dwarka, South District, New Delhi.

2. The background facts are that the petitioner is a 3rd year law student pursuing his LLB from Jagmohan College of Law, Masuri, Link Road, Khekra, Baghpat affiliated with Choudhary Charan Singh University of Meerut. In the year 2012, petitioner completed his graduation and thereafter in the year 2020, he joined his LLB course at the said college. In the month of August 2022, after completion of 2 years of LLB course, the petitioner joined Abhay RajVerma, Advocate who is practicing before various District Courts in Delhi, as an intern for two months. The petitioner used to accompany Advocate Verma in day to day Court hearings to gain experience. He always attended Court in white shirt and black pants but never wore Advocate robes and never represented himself as an Advocate.

3. However, on 31st August 2022, Advocate Verma was out of station and his client, Shri Satbir Singh was not well due to which there was no one available to attend the Complaint Case bearing No. 4218 of 2020 pending before the learned MM-07, South West Dwarka, New Delhi. Advocate Verma gave him instructions to appear before the Court as an intern and he accordingly apprised the Court that neither Advocate Verma nor the client could appear and sought an adjournment on their behalf. When the petitioner appeared before the Court and stated so, he was queried by the learned MM that whether he was appearing as main counsel or proxy and in his nervousness, he submitted that he was a “proxy”. He was under the mistaken impression that a “proxy” is somebody who seeks an adjournment and was not sure about the ramifications of the same. The petitioner was then asked about his identity by the learned MM and gave his law student identity card. The petitioner was not wearing any band or lawyer robes at that point of time.

4. Upset by the situation, the learned MM issued directions to place a copy of the Court proceedings dated 31st August 2022 with the ID proof of the petitioner before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South West Dwarka, for information. Pursuant to the same the petitioner appeared before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and apprised him about the facts and circumstances. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, South West Dwarka, declined to take any legal action since the petitioner was a law intern.

5. However on 3rd September 2022 upon the complaint of respondent No. 2 Shri Jitender Solanki, Hon’ble Secretary, Dwarka Court Bar Association, the impugned FIR got registered. The petitioner and Advocate Verma were called for this purpose and their statements were recorded by the concerned IO. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no question of any impersonation as an Advocate by the petitioner, since he was working as an intern and had appeared as an intern in an exigent situation where his principal Advocate Verma and the client in that particular matter were not available. Therefore, instead of having no one appearing before the Court, the petitioner was instructed to appear and seek an adjournment. It was further submitted that he was not wearing a band, nor did he ever state that he was an Advocate to the Court.

6. Having perused the records of the case and having heard the counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, this issue has been amplified disproportionately before the learned MM, particularly keeping in mind that the petitioner upon being queried by the learned MM, fairly disclosed that he was an intern and also gave his ID card upon being asked to do so. It was not a situation where an intern was wearing the robes of an Advocate or had stated that he was an Advocate. In his understandable nervousness, if the intern stated he was a “proxy”, it would be a bona fide mis