Oral Order

1. This application is filed for following reliefs:-

          "a. Admit, hear and allow the present application;

          b. Quash and set aside order dated 12.02.2026 passed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Botad in Criminal Revision Application No. 46 of 2025;

          c. Quash and set aside order dated 21.07.2025 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwala below Exh.21 in Criminal Case No. 266 of 2024;

          d. Hold that the Respondent No.1 cannot act as a pleader/representative for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 266 of 2024 pending before Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwala;

          e. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, stay operation and implementation of the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Botad in Criminal Revision Application No.46 of 2025 and order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwala below Exhibit 21 in Criminal Case No.266 of 2024.

          f. Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice."

2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.Darshan Kothari, learned advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 and learned APP, Mr.Meet Thakkar for respondent no.4-State.

3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that application below Exhibit 21 was filed by accused no.1 to appear on behalf of accused nos.2 and 3 in the proceedings arising from the offence of 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that accused no.1 is neither having the degree of law nor he is registered as an advocate, then also he was permitted to appear on behalf of accused nos.2 and 3, who are the father and mother of accused no.1. It is submitted that while allowing the application and granting the permission to accused no.1 to appear for accused number 2 and 3, learned trial Court has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Rajiv Joshi and Another versus State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No.2105 of 2011, which was arising from the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that, in that case, on the basis of the power of attorney the respondent was permitted to appear for the complainant. It is submitted that in the instant case, facts can be distinguished. It is submitted that, in that background, the order passed on the basis of the decision in the the case of Rajiv Joshi (supra) is to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that learned revisional Court has also confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, both the orders are required to be quashed and present petition is required to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that learned Court, while allowing the application, has satisfied the requirement of Section 2(q) of Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that the wife is the complainant in alleged offence under Section 498-A of IPC, wherein the husband is the main accused and the accused nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of the husband, are roped in. It is submitted that learned Court, after referring the decision rendered by this Court, has allowed the application, therefore, the impugned order may not be interfered.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates and the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate Court as well as by learned revisional Court, it emerges from the record that the complainant is the wife of accused no.1 and daughter-in-law of accused nos.2 and 3. The FIR is filed under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which was culminated into the charge-sheet and, thereafter, the criminal case was registered before the learned trial Court, wherein the application below Exhibit 21 was filed on 09.06.2025 seeking permission to appear on behalf of accused nos.2 and 3 by accused no.1. This court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Harishankar Rastogi versus Girdhari Sharma and others reported in (1978) 2 SCC 165, wherein the question for the consideration before the Apex Court was that whether a person, who is not an advocate by profession, can be permitted to plead on behalf of the petitioner? The Apex Court, while answering the question in affirmative, has held as under:-

          "4. Having regard to this conspectus of-considerations I hold that a private person, who is not an advocate, has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for d party. He must get the prior permission of the Court, for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. In fact, the Court may, even after grant of permission, withdraw it half-way through if the representative proves himself reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission. In the present case I have noticed the petitioner and his friend who is to represent him, come together with mutual confidence. The party somehow has not shown sufficient confidence in advocates he has come by. This bodes ill for him. I should have suspected the association of the private person as having sinister implications of exploitation of a guileless party but suspicion by itself should not be the basis of a conclusion. Therefore,. I think it right to give the party, who appears to be unable to represent his own case, an opportunity to present his grievance through, his friend. That friend, judging by the note prepared and put in, seems to be familiar with law, although quacks can prove fatal friends. I grant the petitioner permission to be represented by a private person as prayed for, with the condition that if this latter proves unworthy, the permission will be withdrawn."

6. This Court has also referred to the decision rendered in the case of Rajiv A. Joshi (supra), wherein also in identical situation this Court has held as under:-

          "11. The moot question which is required to be considered is whether the applicant, who appears as party-in-person along with Ms.Smita Patel could be permitted to appear and address the Court in view of the provisions of the Advocates Act as well as Section 2(q) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As it is evident from the facts stated that the applicant, Rajiv Joshi is the original complainant, who has lodged complaint under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent no.2-accused, in which, though bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued, the accused and his advocate did not remain present continuously and, hence, the applicant submitted an application under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was granted vide order dated 16.10.2010. The original accused-respondent no.2 had challenged the said order by way of Criminal Revision Application No.467 of 2010, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2011. Therefore, it has been prayed that the Power of Attorney, Ms.Smita Patel may be permitted to appear and plead in the proceeding on behalf of the applicant.

          .........

          19. Similarly, reliance placed on the judgment of this case of Jaymal Thakore V/s Court reported in Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State & Ors., 2001 (3) GLR 2124 also has to be considered in the context of the facts that the applicant, who was a Chartered Accountant and in his professional capacity claims a right to represent his clients both as "recognised agent" and a "Pleader". It is in this background of the facts and also considering the provisions of the Advocates Act, the observations have been made that he cannot appear. In the facts of the present case, the situation is totally different where a person, who appears as party in person, desires to have an assistance of a next friend, who is not an advocate. It is well accepted that next friend, who is appearing, is not claiming to appear as advocate or member of the profession, who is enrolled as per the Advocates Act but is permitted to appear to assist the party-in-person for his matter only and not in the professional capacity as an Advocate. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 30, 32 and 33 of the Advocate Act has to be read when the person his is claiming in capacity appear professional to represent the case of other person as a client. In the facts of the present case, the permission is sought by Ms.Smita Patel to appear with the party-in-person as a next friend for his assistance and not in the capacity as any member of the profession or Advocate that she may be permitted to appear for other parties in different matters. Therefore, this will not have any application and the objection raised by learned counsel, Mr.Vakharia is without any merits.

          20. However, it is also clarified that Ms.Smita Patel is permitted to appear and plead in the Court. But it should be only to the extent of rendering her assistance to the party-in-person but cannot depose or file any application on behalf of the party-in-person. Therefore, the observation made by the City Sessions Court in the impugned order are misconceived, particularly when, there is specific observations referring to the apprehension that if such permission is allowed to appear, it would wipe out the profession. It is also well accepted that the next friend is permitted in the departmental proceedings or other proceedings to assist the delinquent. Therefore, there cannot be any total bar, which is not even contemplated in Section 32 of the Advocates Act. As discussed above, reading of Section 32 of the Advocates Act with Section 2(q) of the Criminal Procedure Code would make the position clear that what Section 32 of the Advocates Act provides that the Court or authority may permit any person, who is not enrolled as an Advocate to appear before it in any particular case, meaning thereby, the permission can be granted confining to that particular case only and not permitting him/her to appear as professional for various litigations or the clients. Similarly, Section 2(q) of the Criminal Procedure Code again referred in definition of "pleader" clearly provides that it includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in the proceedings, meaning thereby, a person, who is not a pleader or authorized under any law to practice in the Court may also be appointed with act in the the permission of the Court to to be proceedings. Again such permission has confined to that particular case only where such permission is granted and cannot be a general licence permitting to appear for different clients as an Advocate or profession. It is in these set of circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

          21. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court No.12, Bhadra, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.281 of 2011 dated 06.08.2011 confirming the order passed below application, Exh.33 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9 in Criminal Case No.5869 of 2010 (Old No.983/2003) dated 09.05.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The permission, as prayed for to plead in the trial of Criminal Case is granted to Ms.Smita Patel to assist the in applicant-party-in-person a particular matter only. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent."

7. Considering the both the decisions, wherein the private person is permitted to appear though he was not an advocate, the issue appears to be no more res integra. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no error has been committed by learned Courts below in allowing the application below Exhibit 21. Therefore, the impugned orders do not require any interference. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of.

8. In view of the above order passed in main matter, the connected Criminal Misc. Application do not survive and the same is also disposed of.