An Advocate cannot be summoned under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. without a valid legal basis, protecting attorney-client confidentiality unless evidence of illegal activity exists.

JUDGMENT :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

1] Heard on I.A. No.2313/2025, which is an application filed by Shri Rahul Maheshwari, Advocate seeking directions in the light of subsequent facts and quashment of the notice dated 11/03/2025, issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Indore, purportedly u/s.91/160 of Cr.P.C.

2] This writ petition has already been disposed of by this Court vide its final order dated 19/11/2024, which had arisen out of Crime No.1197/2023 under Section 420 , 409 and 406 of IPC registered at Police Station, Banganga, District Indore (M.P.). In the petition, the grievance was made in respect of improper investigation with a prayer that the investigation be conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.

3] In the aforesaid petition, Shri Rahul Maheshwari, Advocate had appeared for the petitioner, who has filed the present I.A. No.2313/2025 in his personal capacity challenging the notice dated 11/03/2025, issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Indore asking him to appear and give samples of his signatures, which he had appended on the notice issued by him on behalf of the petitioner to the accused, who has allegedly defrauded the complainant with huge amount running into crores of rupees.

4] On the last date of hearing, i.e. 13/03/2025, when the matter came up for hearing before this Court for consideration of the aforesaid I.A. for the first time after its disposal, this Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the notice dated 11/03/2025, and it was also directed that the concerned DCP Shri Hansraj Singh shall not investigate the matter till further orders, and he was also directed to file an affidavit in response to the said I.A.

5] Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit has also been filed by the said DCP informing that he has withdrawn the notice as the presence of shri Maheshwari advocate is not required for now.

6] An application for intervention, I.A. No.2577/2025 has also been filed on behalf of the accused Diven Ghanshaym Dembla.

7] Heard.

8] Shri Divyakant Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court and it is submitted that the DCP exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the aforesaid notice and even if it is withdrawn by him, it needs to be quashed as otherwise it would given wrong signal to the police personnel and would also affect the also the legal fraternity in general. It is also submitted that the matter may be directed to be transferred/investigated by some other officer to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation. Counsel has also submitted that in the present case, the application filed by the accused for anticipatory bail has already been dismissed by the trial Court, which has also been affirmed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.51194/2023 vide order dated 08/02/2024, and the Supreme Court, in SLP(Crl.) No.4698/2024 dated 08/07/2024 has also affirmed the order passed by this court, although the accused was given liberty to file fresh application for anticipatory bail before the trial court but the same has also been rejected by the trial Court. In such circumstances, it is submitted that when the accused has still not been arrested, and the notice has been issued to the counsel for the complainant, the same is liable to be quashed.

9] The prayer has been opposed by Shri Satish L. Maneshinde, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervener/accused with equal vehemence, and it is submitted that the notice has been rightly issued by the concerned officer for verification of the signatures of the Advocate. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervener has also relied upon the decision in the case of A.V. Pavithran Advocate vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Branch and another rendered by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.36 of 2024 dated 24/04/2024 to submit that the police undoubtedly has the power to summon any person including a practicing