Verdictum: Bengaluru: Tuesday, June 02, 2026.
The Court strongly admonished the complainant, a public servant, for dragging the defence counsel into a matrimonial and caste-related dispute merely for discharging his professional obligations.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against an advocate who was arrayed as an accused for simply seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to defend his client. The Court expressed deep disquiet over the rising trend of disgruntled litigants weaponizing the criminal justice system to intimidate advocates. The Court categorically held that an advocate acting strictly within the confines of professional duties and institutional instructions cannot be subjected to the trauma of investigative proceedings, as such intimidation strikes a paralyzing blow to the independence of the Bar and the purity of the administration of justice.
The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has surfaced in recent times. This Court is encountering plethora of cases, wherein Advocates, who merely represent parties before Courts of law in the discharge of their professional obligations, are themselves being dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as accused. The only “fault” attributable to such Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum."
Brief Facts of the Case
The Petitioner was an advocate by profession who came to be arrayed as accused number four in a criminal case registered by the jurisdictional police. A matrimonial dispute arose between the complainant, who was working as an Assistant Conservator of Forest, and the co-accused individuals. The petitioner was engaged professionally to represent the co-accused and accordingly entered appearance by filing his vakalathnama and subsequent statement of objections before the family court. In the course of discharging his professional duties and acting upon instructions from his clients, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act before an educational institution to secure certain information concerning the complainant for production before the court.
Consequent to the collection of information regarding the caste of the complainant from the school, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint. The said complaint was registered as a first information report against several individuals, including the petitioner, for offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Agitated by the registration of the said crime, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Contentions of the parties
The Petitioner vehemently contended that the registration of the criminal case against an advocate was a gross abuse of the process of law and a clear misuse of the criminal justice system. It was submitted that the petitioner had no personal animosity or involvement in the inter-se dispute between the parties and was merely acting in his professional capacity to defend his clients. It was argued that the act of seeking information under the Right to Information Act to bolster a client’s legal defense could not be construed as a criminal offence, and allowing the investigation to continue would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The Complainant countered the arguments, asserting that the petition was premature as the investigation was at its threshold. It was contended that the petitioner-advocate had exceeded the scope of his professional duties by attempting to gather information beyond what was legally necessary for presentation before the court. The Respondent sought the dismissal of the petition, arguing that the true role and intent of the petitioner could only be unearthed through a comprehensive police investigation.
Observations of the Court
High Court observed that to attract the provisions of Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), there must exist the deliberate making of a false document or electronic record with the intent to cause injury or unlawful prejudice. The Court noted that how these ingredients could be attributed to the petitioner remained shrouded in mystery, as his role was strictly confined to procuring school documents under professional instructions from his clients. The Court further noted that the invocation of Sections 336(3) and 340 of the BNS—which contemplate forgery for the purpose of cheating or using a forged document as genuine—was wholly untenable. The complaint was found to be conspicuously silent regarding any participation, fabrication, or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner, meaning the offenses could not independently survive or justify an investigation against him It was held that the allegations pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were woven in the most fragile and nebulous manner.
The Court observed that the complaint contained no whisper of any overt act or hurling of abuses by the petitioner in a public place or a place of public view, thereby failing to disclose the foundational ingredients required to invoke the rigors of the special penal provisions. The Court expressed deep disquiet over the increasingly disturbing trend of dragging advocates into criminal proceedings merely for discharging their professional duties. It observed that exposing advocates to criminal prosecution for articulating their clients' causes would have a paralyzing and chilling effect on the fearless discharge of their duties, thereby striking at the very independence of the Bar and the purity of the administration of justice. The High Court unequivocally admonished the second respondent-complainant, noting that such conduct, especially coming from a public servant, displayed a reckless misuse of authority and an abuse of coercive powers.
The Court observed that the sanctity of the justice delivery system must remain inviolable and warned that any future reiteration of such unfounded conduct would be viewed with the utmost seriousness. "Such tendency strikes at the very heart of independence of the bar, by necessary extension the purity of administration of justice itself. Advocates are officers of the Court, they function within the confines of professional duty, acting upon the instructions of their client and presenting their cause within the four corners of law. If every Advocate, merely by a reason of appearing for a litigant is exposed to criminal prosecution and trauma of investigative proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be a chilling and paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of professional responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants to wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against the members of the bar", the Court observed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. The criminal proceedings impugned in the petition pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court were quashed qua the petitioner.
Cause Title: Sri Pradeep Kumar v. The State and Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026:KHC:21597] Appearances: Petitioner: Advocate Sravanna S Respondents: Addl. SPP BS Jagadeesh and Advocate BS Sachin
.JPG)
.JPG)
