Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Man Accused Of Posing As Lawyer, Taking ₹21 Lakh To Resolve Litigation
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against two persons–one of whom allegedly posed as an advocate–accused of cheating a widow of over Rs 21 Lakh on the promise of resolving her property litigation, holding that the allegations disclosed a criminal element and could not be dismissed as a purely civil matter. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while dismissing the petition...
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against two persons–one of whom allegedly posed as an advocate–accused of cheating a widow of over Rs 21 Lakh on the promise of resolving her property litigation, holding that the allegations disclosed a criminal element and could not be dismissed as a purely civil matter.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while dismissing the petition filed by the accused, directed the police to conduct a “proper and in-depth investigation” into the case.
Observing that the petitioners failed to fulfil their promise of resolving the complainant's property litigation and that one of them was later found not to be an advocate, the High Court said, “This conduct would be required to be examined during the course of investigation to ascertain whether accused no.1 had represented that he was an advocate and whether he is an advocate or not since such a conduct would not only have a bearing on the present matter would also have bearing on the judicial system as a whole, where litigants depend on the judicial system for proper adjudication of their matters in a manner known to and in accordance with law.”
It further added, “If persons were to make such promises that they would resolve disputes outside the court when the matter is pending in court, were to be encouraged, the judicial system itself would be brought to disrepute. The allegations which have been made are serious enough to merit a serious and complete investigation by the jurisdictional police.”
The High Court also rejected the petitioners' contention regarding non-compliance with the Apex Court guidelines in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of UP (2015) and said, “The verifying affidavit clearly and categorically indicates that the complainant approached the jurisdictional police to lodge the complaint against the accused but the jurisdictional police failed to receive the same. Hence, a private complaint has been filed and that the averments made in the complaint and in all the paragraphs are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. This in the considered opinion of this Court satisfies the requirement of the verifying affidavit as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Background
The case arose from a private complaint filed by the second respondent Sunanda P., whose husband had passed away following a kidney failure. Facing multiple legal disputes regarding her deceased husband's immovable properties, she was allegedly approached by the first petitioner, T. G. Balan. He allegedly posed as an advocate and assured her that he, along with the second petitioner, Murugesh Vikram, would resolve all pending litigation.
Based on this, she transferred over Rs 21 lakh through bank transfers as well as cash to the petitioners. However, no progress was made in the civil proceedings. Upon discovering that the first petitioner was not an advocate, she demanded a refund and subsequently lodged a complaint to police. When the complaint was not registered, she filed a private complaint before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, following which an FIR was registered.
Case: T G BALAN & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 991 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)