Asking officers from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to disclose their identity cards cannot be considered an act of assault or criminal force, the Bombay High Court observed on Thursday while discharging three lawyers from a criminal case [Gobindram Daryanumal Talreja and Ors v The State of Maharashtra].

The three lawyers, including one who was an intern at the time, had been accused of assault, acting with criminal force and obstructing a public servant after they asked CBI officers to show their ID during a 2007 search at a client's office.

"Asking the CBI Officers to disclose their identity cards cannot be considered as an act of assault or criminal force ... It is clear and an undoubtable case of wounded ego and affront caused to the CBI Officer when he was asked to show his identity card and identify himself which led to subsequent events and complaint against Applicants under Section 353 IPC," the Court found in its November 21 verdict.

A single judge Bench of Justice Milind Jadhav also directed the State to pay ₹15,000 each to the three lawyers for the 17-year-long legal battle they endured in the matter, after noting that the trial had not even commenced despite a chargesheet being filed.

“The costs are awarded in order to send a clear message to the Law Enforcement Agencies to ensure that legal provisions are not misused by them so as to cause irreparable hardship and sufferance to the common man and citizens of this country and that Rule of law prevails,” the Court added.

The case stems from a CBI search operation that took place in November 2007 at the office of a company linked to one of the applicants’ clients, Sonal Chitroda.

The advocates—Gobindram Daryanomal Talreja, Haresh Sobhraj Motwani, and Prateek Naushad Sanghvi (intern)—were accused of obstructing CBI officers during the raid.

The incident began when Talreja (one of the lawyers) was informed by his client that CBI officers had arrived at her office to investigate financial irregularities. While Talreja was in court at the time, he reassured Chitroda that the officers’ investigation would proceed smoothly.

However, later that afternoon, around 4:45 pm, Chitroda reported mistreatment by the CBI officers, prompting Talreja to send Motwani and Sanghvi to her office. Upon arrival, the two advocates questioned the officers, asked to see their identity cards, and insisted on being present during the search.

Tensions escalated when one of the CBI officers demanded that Talreja hand over his phone, which he refused. The advocates were arrested later that evening but were granted bail the following day.

In 2008, the CBI filed charges under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), accusing the advocates of obstructing the officers’ duties. The advocates strongly denied the allegations, maintaining that they were simply performing their role as legal representatives.

Justice Jadhav found merit in these arguments and sharply criticized the prosecution's insistence on continuing the criminal proceedings against the three lawyers.

“There is nothing on record and even in the FIR or the statements of four (4) CBI Officers / Staff recorded by the Investigating Officer to show use of assault, criminal force, obstruction and preventing the search which was carried out for the past 10 hours to stop or being halted by them ... The applicants left the premises when instructed by the police and suffered an illegal arrest for actions they did not fully comprehend," the Court noted.

The Court added that the incident appeared to be the result of a "wounded ego" on the part of a CBI officer. The Court also expressed sympathy for Sanghvi, who was an intern at the time.

"This Court can only imagine what must have gone through the mind of a young college going law student i.e. Applicant No. 3 who was interning with Applicant No. 1's firm as a Law Intern at the then time to have suffered the ignominy, disgrace and infamy when at the threshold of stepping into this noble profession he was arrested," it said.

The Court further criticized the police and CBI for their handling of the situation, stating that the arrest of the lawyers was an abuse of power.

"The Police Authorities have also blindly played a subservient role to the CBI Officers by arresting the Applicants without application of mind about the applicability of Section 353, IPC," the Court remarked.

Advocate Meenal Chandnani appeared for three lawyers/ applicants. Additional Public Prosecutor Manisha Tidke appeared for the State

[Read Order]