Lawyer's Professional Conduct Can't Be Criminalised Merely Because It Displeases Adversary: Karnataka High Court

While flagging the "disturbing trend" of criminal proceedings being lodged against lawyers for carrying out professional obligations, the Karnataka High Court remarked that as long as advocates act professionally their conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his advise displeases the adversary. 

In doing so the court quashed a FIR against a lawyer over allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation where the lawyer, who appears for a co-accused, was accused of issuing a telephonic threat to the complainant. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said:

"This Court has, of late, witnessed an increasing and disturbing trend where Advocates, merely because they discharge their professional obligations in representing litigants or legally assisting them, are sought to be implicated in criminal proceedings. Their only perceived offence is that they stood beside their clients, articulated their cause before judicial fora and performed the duties which the legal profession demands of them. Such attempts strike at the very independence of the Bar, an institution that forms one of the indispensable pillars sustaining the administration of justice.

So long as the Advocate acts within the bounds of law and professional ethics, his or her conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his representation or advise displeases the adversary. If criminal prosecution becomes the inevitable consequence of fearless advocacy, the legal profession itself would be reduced to one of apprehension rather than independence. The majesty of the Bar cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants wielding the criminal process as a weapon of retaliation or intimidation against officers of the Court". 

The petitioner, a practicing Advocate had sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 318(4)(cheating) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) BNS, wherein he was booked as accused No.4.

The complainant had alleged that when he went to accused no. 1's house to recover money owed to him, the latter called 4-5 people including the petitioner to threaten the complainant. It was alleged that the petitioner had also threatened the complainant over phone call. Thereafter the complainant claimed of more instances of threats issued by accused no. 1 as well as others. 

Then on 02-03-2026, the complainant along with his friends allegedly assaulted accused No.1 using metal knuckle buster on various parts of his body, which resulted in registration of another FIR for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 351(3), 352 r/w. 3(5) of the BNS.

On 03-03-2026, complainant, his father and friends who came to know of the FIR allegedly contacted accused No.1 and pressurized him to withdraw the complaint.

After about 2½ months of this incident and registration of the FIR, the complainant registered a complaint on 12-05-2026, where petitioner was also booked as an accused. 

The court said that with respect to the petitioner, prosecution rested on a slender foundation. It said that the complaint, lodged on 12-05-2026, narrates nothing more than an allegation that the petitioner, described as another acquaintance of accused no. 1, had allegedly threatened the complainant over a telephone call.

"Beyond this solitary and bald assertion, the complaint is conspicuously silent. No overt act, no participation in the alleged transaction and no role in the genesis of the dispute is attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner, an Advocate by profession and the legal representative of accused No.1, thus finds himself inexplicably entangled in the web of criminal proceedings, solely because of his professional association with his client," the court said. 

The court said that the offence was cheating was not made out against the petitioner as for that deceit must be the genesis of the transaction between parties and not an afterthought born out of subsequent events.

As far as the petitioner is concerned, there exists no transaction whatsoever between him and the complainant and the allegation is confined to an alleged telephonic threat, the court said. 

With respect to allegation of criminal intimidation, the court said that the complaint was bereft of any material against the petitioner that could remotely constitute criminal intimidation in the eyes of law. 

The court further said that if the complainant had genuinely perceived the alleged conversation as criminal intimidation, nothing prevented the immediate invocation of the criminal law; but there was an "unexplained silence for nearly three months".

While delay may not always be fatal, the court said that yet, in matters involving allegations of intimidation, assault or infliction of personal injury, whether physical or verbal, promptness in approaching the law enforcement machinery lends assurance to the authenticity of the accusation.

"What renders the matter even more disquieting is the identity of the petitioner. His only discernible "transgression" is that he happens to be an Advocate representing accused No.1 and is alleged to have received or made a telephonic call in that capacity. If such slender and nebulous allegations are permitted to mature into criminal investigation, the inevitable consequence would be far graver than the fate of the individual petitioner. It would cast a long and chilling shadow upon the fearless discharge of professional duties by members of the Bar," the court added. 

Allowing the plea the court quashed the FIR only against the petitioner. 

Also read: 'Disturbing Trend Of Dragging Advocates': Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Accused's Lawyer Who Filed RTI Seeking Info On Complainant

Case title: SRI MAYUR D BHANU v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 

WRIT PETITION No.16181 OF 2026 (GM - RES)

Appearance: SMT.KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHARAN N.S., SRI SHAMANTH GOWDA J., AND SRI SHASHIKUMAR H.S., ADVOCATES for Petitioner

SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-1

Click Here To Read/Download Order