Karnataka High Court disturbed by trend of implicating lawyers in criminal cases for...

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed three criminal cases against an advocate and other individuals, observing that there was a complete absence of even an iota of criminality in the matter [S Rajendra v State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna found that a land dispute between the parties had been "artfully clothed in the robes of criminal prosecution" and that the advocate had merely represented his clients in a civil suit before revenue authorities.

"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 said.

The Bench added that the Court was coming across a plethora of cases in which advocates were being dragged into criminal proceedings and made accused merely for representing parties in discharge of their professional obligations.

"Therefore, 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 said.

The Court observed that the majesty of the legal profession cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants who wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against the members of the Bar.

"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," it said.

The matter before the Court concerned criminal cases dating back to 2023, which were registered when the advocate allegedly entered some disputed property along with his clients. The complainants were allegedly verbally abused and threatened.

They further claimed that the advocate fabricated a partition deed and other documents to fraudulently obtain a loan from a co-operative bank.

However, the Court found that the complaint was tied to a two-decade-long history of civil disputes between the parties and that the advocate had been falsely implicated solely for representing some of the parties.

"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 said.

Concluding that there were only some "bald assertions" in the case, the Court said continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

"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 said, while quashing the case.

The Court also underscored the need to ensure that civil disputes are not given a criminal colour. Courts are expected to thwart such unnecessarily criminalised cases at the threshold, the Bench said.

"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 June 12 ruling reads.

The petitioners (accused) were represented by Advocates Satyanarayana Chalke S and Devaraja M.

The complainants were represented by Advocate KN Dayalu.

The State was represented by State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha.

[Read Judgment]