The Orissa High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate who was accused in a 2016 case involving alleged cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and money-laundering. The Court held that merely issuing a legal notice on a client's instructions does not make an advocate criminally liable, unless there is material showing the lawyer knowingly participated in the alleged wrongdoing.
Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi delivered the judgment on August 21, 2026, in a petition filed by advocate Bijayananda Panda under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background Of The Case
The case arose from Narla Police Station Case No. 83 of 2016, later registered as C.T. Case No. 173 of 2016 before the JMFC, M. Rampur, Kalahandi.
The petitioner, an advocate enrolled with the State Bar Council in 2004, had earlier worked under senior advocate Haramohan Pattnaik. According to his case, in January 2016, his senior instructed him to send legal notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on behalf of client Bidhu Bhusan Naik.
The notices had been drafted by his senior and emailed to Panda. He printed them on his letterhead and had them dispatched through the office clerk. The complaint, however, subsequently led to his implication in the criminal case.
The prosecution alleged that several persons were involved in financial dealings concerning loans, blank signed cheques and documents. It claimed that the legal notices were part of the alleged conspiracy and that the accused persons were connected through financial transactions.
Court Examines Advocate's Role
The High Court closely examined whether there was any independent material connecting Panda with the alleged financial wrongdoing.
The Court distinguished between the alleged principal wrongdoer and the advocate who had issued the notices on professional instructions. It noted that the material before it showed only that Panda had acted on the instructions of his senior and dispatched the notices on behalf of a client.
"An Advocate discharging his professional duty of drafting or having correspondence, including notices under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, on the instructions of his client, does not thereby become a guarantor of the truth of the averments contained therein," the Court observed.
The Court also made it clear that professional status does not provide absolute immunity. If an advocate knowingly becomes an active participant in a fraudulent scheme, criminal prosecution can still follow. The relevant question is whether there is prima facie material showing knowledge of the illegality or conscious participation in the alleged conspiracy.
On examining the FIR, witness statements, final form, charge-sheet and case diary, the Court found no material indicating that Panda knew about the alleged financial dealings or participated in any meeting, negotiation or transaction connected with them.
The Court rejected the State's broad submission that questions concerning the advocate's knowledge and intention must necessarily be left for trial. It said that merely using the word "conspiracy" in a charge-sheet cannot prevent the High Court from examining whether there is a factual basis for that allegation.
"Conspiracy is not a magic incantation that, once invoked, immunizes a charge-sheet from scrutiny," the Court said, adding that the allegation must be supported by some discernible act or circumstance connecting the accused to the alleged criminal design.
Court's Decision
The High Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings against Panda, in the absence of incriminating material showing his involvement, would amount to abuse of the court process and cause unwarranted harassment.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the CRLMC and quashed C.T. Case No. 173 of 2016 insofar as it concerned Bijayananda Panda.
The proceedings against the remaining accused were directed to continue in accordance with law, unaffected by the Court's observations concerning Panda.
Case Details
Case Title: Bijayananda Panda v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: CRLMC No. 3396 of 2025
Judge: Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Decision Date: August 21, 2026
