Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹15k Cost On Lawyer For Contending That God Can’t Represent Before Court Or Tribunal
The Karnataka High Court was considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking the quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
While dealing with a land dispute matter, the Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of ₹15,000 on the litigants whose lawyer contended that God cannot represent before the Court or Land Tribunal.
The High Court was considering a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, who had been arraigned as accused, in a case registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh held, “When this Court comes to such conclusion, at this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners makes the submission that the God cannot represent before the Court or Land Tribunal. The said submission is made when the counsel did not get the favourable order. The counsel cannot expect an order in his favour and such submission is not sustainable in the law. The temple to whom the petitioners represented, they are in the affairs of temple and the grant order also not challenged and the same has attained its finality. The very conduct of the counsel depraved and amounting to contempt. In stead of initiating contempt, it is appropriate to impose the cost and the counsel should not venture to behave in such passion. In view of the above submission, this Court finds to direct the petitioners to pay Rs.15,000/- for the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioners for having appointed such counsel to defend the petitioners.”
Advocate Kethan Kumar represented the Petitioner while High Court Govt Pleader Suhas Gowda M. represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners were allegedly involved in selling the property belonging to the complainant (second respondent) in respect of the land to the extent of 47 guntas situated at Bantwal Kasaba Village, Bantwal Taluk, and based on the complaint, the police registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
Arguments
It was the case of the Petitioners that originally, the property belonged to the temple, but subsequently, occupancy rights were granted in favour of the father of the complainant, and the same was not within the knowledge of the petitioners.
It was the case of the complainant that when the land was granted in favour of his father before the Land Tribunal, it was within the knowledge of the the petitioners but they along with others sold the said property.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench refused to consider the defence of the petitioners that they were not having any knowledge about the transaction. The Bench thus held that the matter required a detailed trial before the Court below and did not find any ground to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. “The scope of Section 482 is very limited and the defence cannot be considered and those grounds which have been urged before this Court also could be taken as a defence before the trial Court”, it held.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that God cannot represent before the Court or Land Tribunal. Taking note of this, the Bench held that the counsel should not venture to behave in such passion and asked the petitioners to pay ₹15,000.
The Benc thus dismissed the petition with an exemplary cost of ₹15,000 payable to the Registry within one week.
Cause Title: Arala Damodar Prabhu v. State by Bantwal Town Police (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:56798)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Kethan Kumar
Respondent: High Court Govt Pleader Suhas Gowda M., Advocate Ramakrishna S. Hegde