Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.Nagaprasanna, J
Pradeepkumar – Appellant
Versus
State By Vidhana Soudha Police Station – Respondent
WP No. 29541 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saravana S.
For the Respondents: B.N.Jagadeesha, B.S.Sachin

Criminal proceedings against an advocate for performing professional duties without any specific overt act or criminal culpability are an abuse of the court's process. Furthermore, offences under the special law regarding atrocities require the incident to occur in 'public view', which is a mandatory prerequisite for prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 336(2), 336(3) and 340 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r) and (s) - Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner, an advocate, arrayed as accused for professional actions - Court held that merely representing a client or seeking information under Right to Information Act does not constitute criminal offence - No ingredients of forgery or cheating established against petitioner. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r) and (s) - Offence of atrocity - Requirement of 'public view' - Alleged incident must occur in a place visible to the public or where the public is present - Acts occurring within private premises without public presence do not satisfy legal ingredients. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)

(C) Legal Profession - Independence of the Bar - Advocates functioning as officers of the court within the scope of professional duty cannot be subjected to the trauma of criminal investigation for representing a client - Misuse of criminal justice system by complainants to intimidate members of the bar warrants judicial admonition. (Paras 19, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
An advocate was named as an accused in a criminal complaint regarding allegations of forgery and caste-based abuse, stemming from his representation of clients in ongoing civil and criminal litigation and his filing of information requests under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings, contending they were a frivolous attempt to misuse the criminal justice system.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations disclosed no criminal intent or overt acts. The charges under the law governing forgery were unsustainable, and the requirements for the offence under the special law regarding atrocities were not met as there was no evidence of an incident occurring within public view or public gaze.

Issues: Whether the registration of an FIR against an advocate for performing professional duties and filing requests under the Right to Information Act constitutes an abuse of process and whether the ingredients for the alleged offences were satisfied on a plain reading of the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings against an advocate for performing professional obligations are contrary to the independence of the bar. Furthermore, an FIR must be quashed where it fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, specifically when the statutory requirement of the incident occurring in a 'place within public view' is missing.

Result: Petition allowed; proceedings against the petitioner quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and initiation of criminal proceedings against a legal professional. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contentions of the parties regarding the alleged misuse of the criminal justice system against an advocate. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. analysis of bns provisions on forgery and the lack of requisite ingredients in the complaint. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. failure to prove offences under the sc/st act due to lack of public view ingredient. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. protection of the legal profession from vexatious criminal proceedings and final quashing order. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

WRIT PETITION NO. 29541 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRADEEPKUMAR,

S/O LAKSHMANA,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO. 617,

1ST MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,

SRINAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 050.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE BY VIDHANA SOUDHA

POLICE STATION,

DEPARTMENT OF HOME,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU – 560 001,

REPRESENTED BY SPP.

2. SMT. SEEMA H.,

W/O HARSHAD H. K @ MARISWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

NO.4, KADUMALLESHWARA,

GUEST HOUSE, BENGALURU - 560 003.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;

SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN CRIME NO 94/2024 AND ON THE FILE OF THE 41ST ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE; QUASH THE FIR DATED 08.10.2024 IN CRIME NO. 94/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE 41ST ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO NOTICE BEARING NO.VSPS/CRIME/94/2024 DATED 16.10.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE C1, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - an advocate by profession, now stands at the doors of this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.94/2024 against several accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4.

2. Heard Sri.Saravana S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts unfurled are as follows:

3.1. The second respondent is the complainant. The second respondent is said to be working as Assistant Conservator of Forest in the Department of Forest, Government of Karnataka. On 11.08.2017, a missing complaint is registered by father of accused Nos.2 and 3 against the complainant that accused No.3 one Vinod V, was abducted by the second respondent-Complainant. When the second respondent learns about the complaint so registered, drops accused No.3 to Bangalore from Chikkamagalur where he was detained. Thereafter accused No.3 files a complaint against the second respondent in Crime Nos.134 & 137/2017 against the second respondent. The petitioner was nowhere in the picture. On 07.10.2017, a matrimonial case in M.C.No.4953/2017 is filed before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the second respondent's marriage was solemnized with accused No.3. The petitioner now comes into the picture, files power/vakalath for accused No.3 who is the respondent in the matrimonial case so filed by the second respondent-Complainant in M.C.No.4953/2017. A detailed Statement of Objections was also filed by the petitioner in favour of accused No.3 before the concerned Court.

3.2. When things stood thus, a private complaint in PCR No.30/2018 is filed by the second respondent-Complainant against accused Nos.2 and 3 and other family members alleging demand of dowry and abuse of the caste of the complainant. The concerned Court on 12.07.2018, refers the matter for investigation to the jurisdictional police when then becomes a crime in Crime No.102/2018 for offences punishable unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUM.Nagaprasanna, JPradeepkumar – AppellantVersusState By Vidhana Soudha Police Station – RespondentWP No. 29541 of 2024

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.Nagaprasanna, J
Pradeepkumar – Appellant
Versus
State By Vidhana Soudha Police Station – Respondent
WP No. 29541 of 2024