Criminal proceedings arising from disputes that are essentially civil in nature must be quashed to prevent abuse of the judicial process. Advocates cannot be prosecuted for merely performing their professional duties of representing clients, as such actions threaten the independence of the legal profession.

Reserved on : 24.02.2026

Pronounced on : 12.06.2026

CAV ORDER

Writ Petition No.20336 of 2023 is filed by an Advocate, for the reason of arraigning him as accused Nos.8 and 9 in two crimes in Crime Nos. 360 of 2023 and 361 of 2023 respectively. Therefore, the challenge is by the said accused in the said writ petitions. Writ Petition No.20341 of 2023 is calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.351 of 2023 against five accused, in which the Advocate is arrayed as accused No.1 and several other private persons as accused No.2 to 6. Writ Petition No.21486 of 2023 is calling in question registration of crime in all the aforesaid crimes where the challenge is only by the private parties. The crimes have been registered on a solitary incident and the parties to the FIRs are common. Therefore, these cases are taken up together and considered by this common order.

2. Facts, adumbrated, are as follows:

Before embarking upon consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists in the lis. One Lakshmidevamma and K.Rajanna – petitioner No.8 in Writ Petition No.21486 of 2023 are said to be the landlords in Nagarbhavi village of vast areas of land in and around the said village. The averment is, Lakshmidevamma is the sole owner of land measuring 5 acres and 20 guntas in Sy.No.25/2 of Nagarbhavi village. One late Jayamma is the daughter of Lakshmidevamma. Petitioners 1 to 6 in Writ Petition No.21486 of 2023 are all children of late Chikkathimmaiah and late Jayamma. Petitioner No.7 in the said petition is the son of one late Neelamma daughter of late Chikkathimmaiah. The 1st petitioner in Writ Petition No.20336 of 2023 and Writ Petition No.20341 of 2023 is the Advocate who represents the petitioners before the civil Court in all civil disputes pertaining to the properties in those civil disputes. Petitioners 2 to 5 in Writ Petition No.20341 of 2023 are the wife and family members of the Advocate.

HISTORY TO THE DISPUTE:

3. Lakshmidevamma, the sole owner of 5 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.25/2 sold one acre of land to one Padmanabha Shetty in the year 1980. Remaining land was used to form various residential sites; some were sold and some retained. After about 14 years, Padmanabha Shetty and others tried to interfere with the possession of the property owned by Lakshmidevamma. Smt. Lakshmidevamma then filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.6078 of 1994 against Padmanabha Shetty. The suit against Padmanabha Shetty comes to be decreed in favour of Lakshmidevamma on 05-03-1997. Lakshmidevamma then institutes another suit for permanent injunction against one T.Rananna and the husband of Chandramma in O.S.No.5066 of 2000. Smt. Chandramma and T.Rajanna were abutting land owners of the lands belonging to Lakshmidevamma. The suit comes to be dismissed for its non-prosecution. After the dismissal of the suit, it appears, that Lakshmidevamma enters into an agreement of sale with one Venkatarama Sharma who is the father-in-law of S. Rajendra, the Advocate, agreeing to sell a residential site in Sy.No.25/2. Lakshmidevamma dies on 19-06-2001 by executing a Will. This led to several disputes before the civil Court and before this Court. Matters were dismissed by the learned single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench. Those would not be material for the issue that is projected in the lis.

4. The suit in O.S.No.5066 of 2000 which had come to be dismissed for non-prosecution was recalled pursuant to an order passed by t