The Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR and all related criminal proceedings against a Surat-based advocate who was accused of being part of a conspiracy behind a violent attack. The court found that CCTV footage collected during the investigation directly contradicted the complainant's allegations and that there was no independent material linking the lawyer to the alleged offence.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered at Rander Police Station, Surat, in December 2019. The complainant alleged that he was first threatened inside the Surat District Court premises by advocate Mohammad Bilal Ghulam Rasul Kagazi and was later attacked by several accused persons, sustaining serious injuries.
According to the complaint, the advocate had warned the complainant to withdraw an earlier case and allegedly played a role in planning the subsequent assault. Based on these allegations, offences including attempt to murder, causing grievous hurt, unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy were invoked.
The advocate approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, maintaining that he had been falsely implicated because he represented one of the accused in another criminal matter. He argued that CCTV footage from the court premises would establish that he was not present at the location where the alleged threat was said to have occurred.
Justice P. M. Raval examined the investigation record, including CCTV footage obtained during the probe.
The court noted that the footage did not show the advocate at the location inside the court premises where the complainant claimed the threat had been issued.
Observing the significance of this material, the bench said,
“The CCTV footages collected by the Investigating Agency would falsify the claim of the complainant having been threatened by the present applicant at the Court premises at 10:00 O’clock in the morning.”
The State argued that the allegation of criminal conspiracy should be tested during trial and pointed to phone contact between the advocate and a co-accused on the day of the incident. However, the court held that a phone conversation between an advocate and a client could not, by itself, establish a criminal conspiracy.
The court also observed that apart from the complainant's allegations and statements of co-accused persons, there was no corroborative evidence showing that the advocate had entered into any unlawful agreement to commit an offence.
Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings on quashing proceedings, the High Court noted that where material of “sterling and impeccable quality” clearly undermines the prosecution's case, continuation of criminal proceedings may amount to abuse of the process of law.
Allowing the petition, the Gujarat High Court held that the investigation material itself weakened the case against the advocate and that the allegations remained unsupported by independent evidence.
The bench concluded that continuing the proceedings against him would amount to misuse of the legal process. Accordingly, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed insofar as they related to the applicant advocate.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to the applicant and should not influence any ongoing investigation or trial against the remaining accused.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mohammad Bilal Ghulam Rasul Kagazi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 211 of 2020
Judge: Justice P. M. Raval
Decision Date: 19 June 2026
