Duty Of Advocate Is To Assist Court And Not Insist On Favourable Order: Karnataka High Court Initiates Contempt Action Against Lawyer
The Karnataka High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of an FIR in a criminal case registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
While observing that the duty of an advocate is to assist the Court and he cannot insist on a favorable order, the Karnataka High Court has asked the Registrar General to initiate contempt proceedings against a lawyer who refused to file an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased complainant on record.
The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of an FIR in a case registered under Sections 120B, 200, 404, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 426, 464, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh held, “The very conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner is deprecated and hence, it is a case for initiating the criminal contempt proceedings against the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to protect the respect of this institution and he cannot expect an order as he likes and duty of the advocate is to assist the Court and cannot insist the Court to pass an order in his favour. Hence, the Registrar General is directed to initiate the contempt proceedings against the learned counsel for the petitioner.”
Factual Background
The Court had issued a notice against the respondent complainant, and it was reported that the complainant was no more and the copy of the death certificate of the complainant was placed on record stating that he expired on May 3, 2021. Taking note of the same, the Court granted one week to take necessary steps. The counsel for the petitioner repeatedly sought time to file necessary application, but it was later submitted that there was no need to file any such application to bring the LRs of the respondent complainant.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the heirs themselves had not filed the applications to continue the prosecution; rather, the same was filed by their power of attorney holders.
The Bench stated, “Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, it is very clear that in a case of warrant case, in the absence of legal heirs on the death of the complainant during the proceedings, right of legal heirs of the deceased complainant to continue prosecution. Hence, the very submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.”
Considering the fact that the counsel for the petitioner was not ready to make necessary application in spite of sufficient opportunity being given, the Bench refused to accept the very submission of the petitioner that the matter had to be considered on merits. “Without giving an opportunity to the legal heirs which has to be continued on account of death of the complainant, that cannot be done. Without arraigning the LRs. of the complainant, there cannot be any proceedings and hence, no ground is made out to consider the matter on merits and the learned counsel expressed the dissatisfaction before the Court in a rude manner”, it added.
Dismissing the petition and deprecating the conduct of the counsel, the Bench ordered, “The Registrar General is directed to initiate the contempt proceedings against the learned counsel for the petitioner. The very conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner is deprecated in making such submission and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not adhering to the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and instead of behaved in a rude manner before this Court.”
Cause Title: V.M. Kumarswamy v. State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:59045)