Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedSurendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
2026:RJ-JD:42842
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4744/2025
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 25 August 2026
- Bench
- Justice Ravi Chirania
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Advocates Act, 1961; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528; Section 319(2) (FIR offence, printed in the order as "Section 319(2) of BNSS, 2023")
Final Outcome
Petition dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000, to be deposited within one month with the Rajasthan High Court Advocate Clerks Association; the case was listed for compliance on 06.10.2026 (paras 6-7). Later: on 26.10.2026 the High Court recorded counsel's statement that the Supreme Court, by order dated 09.10.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 19076/2026, waived the costs and permitted withdrawal, and the Public Prosecutor's report that the investigation found no offence against the petitioner; the petition was then dismissed as withdrawn (2026:RJ-JD:52159).
Source Rajasthan High Court, decided 25.08.2026
Key holdings
- Enrolment with the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 is a precondition to practising or appearing as an advocate (para 5).
- The Court declined to quash an FIR whose contents showed the petitioner had appeared and filed documents as an advocate without enrolment (paras 4, 6).
- A request to withdraw the petition after the Court’s adverse observations was refused and treated as further affirming the FIR’s allegations (paras 2, 5).
- The Court took a senior advocate’s assistance to ascertain the correct facts (para 3).
- Costs of Rs 50,000 must be deposited within one month with the Rajasthan High Court Advocate Clerks Association (para 6).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
An FIR was registered at Makrana police station, District Didwana-Kuchaman, on 31.05.2025 against the petitioner for an offence under Section 319(2) (para 1). According to the FIR, though not an advocate, he had represented himself as one before the trial court in certain matters and filed documents in different cases; when advocates tried to apprehend him on one occasion, he escaped by scaling the wall of the court premises (para 4). He petitioned under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, claiming that he had never presented himself as an advocate or done work that only an advocate can do (paras 1-2).
Court's Findings
Midway through the hearing, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, which the Court did not permit (para 2). The Court sought the assistance of Senior Advocate Anand Purohit, a former Bar Association president, to hear both sides and report the correct facts; after lunch he told the Court that the petition deserved to be dismissed with costs (para 3). Having heard the parties and read the FIR, the Court found that the petitioner, who is not an advocate, had represented himself as one before the trial court and filed documents in different cases, and had escaped by scaling the court wall when advocates tried to apprehend him (para 4). It held that no person can practise or represent himself as an advocate unless duly enrolled with the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 (para 5). The prayer to withdraw, made after the Court's observations, further affirmed the allegations in the FIR (para 5). The Court therefore declined to exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS (para 6).
Legal Principle
No person may practise as an advocate, or represent himself as one, unless duly enrolled with the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961. The High Court declined to use its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR alleging such conduct where the FIR and the petitioner's own conduct supported the allegations (paras 4-6).