The Karnataka High Court recently annulled three criminal cases against an advocate and other individuals, due to the lack of any criminal activity in the matter, as documented in the case of S Rajendra v State of Karnataka. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the underlying land dispute had been improperly transformed into criminal charges, with the advocate simply performing his duty of representing clients in a civil matter before revenue authorities.
Justice Nagaprasanna stated, “The criminal law cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of oppression in aid of a civil contest. Therefore, on this solitary yet substantial ground, the impugned crime deserves to be obliterated at its very inception.” The court expressed concern over the growing number of cases where lawyers are being unjustly implicated in criminal proceedings for merely fulfilling their professional responsibilities.
“This Court considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its deep disquiet over the increasingly disturbing trend that has surfaced in recent times. The only ‘fault’ attributable to such Advocates is that they appeared for their clients and articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum,” the Bench remarked.
The Court questioned whether an advocate, fulfilling his professional duty of representing a litigant, should be subjected to criminal prosecution. It emphasized that the dignity of the legal profession should not be undermined by litigants using criminal law as a tool for intimidation against members of the Bar.
The Court further elaborated, “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.”
More Read
The case in question revolved around incidents dating back to 2023, wherein the advocate was accused of trespassing on disputed property with his clients and allegedly engaging in verbal abuse and threats. The complainants further alleged document forgery to secure a loan fraudulently. However, the Court found these accusations to be a continuation of a long-standing civil dispute and concluded that the advocate was wrongfully implicated.
“The pivotal issue, therefore, is whether, in the teeth of such circumstances, the criminal law ought to be permitted to be unleashed, and more alarmingly, whether an Advocate, whose only role is that of representing a litigant, can be dragged into the whirlpool of criminal prosecution, merely for discharging his professional duty,” the Bench noted.
The Court concluded that the assertions in the case were unsubstantial, and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process. “What unmistakably emanates from the afore narrated facts is that the dispute projected before the jurisdictional police is overwhelmingly, if not entirely, civil in complexion. This conclusion is neither conjectural nor debatable; it is indubitable and self-evident. To permit the investigating machinery of the State to intrude into what is essentially a civil discord would itself amount to a grave abuse of the process of law,” the Bench stated, while quashing the case.
The Court emphasized the importance of not allowing civil disputes to be mischaracterized as criminal, urging judicial bodies to address such cases at the outset. “The Apex Court observed that the police at the stage of filing a charge sheet, and the criminal Court at the stage of framing charge, must function as vital filters, ensuring that only those prosecutions founded upon a strong suspicion and a reasonable prospect of conviction are permitted to proceed to trial. The Apex Court emphatically underscored that the coercive arm of criminal law cannot be invoked against citizens, in the absence of legally tenable material, merely because a civil dispute subsists between the parties,” the ruling dated June 12 states.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Satyanarayana Chalke S and Devaraja M, while the complainants were represented by Advocate KN Dayalu. State representation was provided by State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha.
