Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Advocate Whose Only Role Was Appearing for a Client and Filing an RTI Application
Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed Crime No. 94/2024 against an advocate arrayed as accused for representing a litigant and seeking school records under the RTI Act, finding no ingredient of forgery or atrocity offences disclosed in the complaint.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has quashed an FIR registered against an advocate, Pradeepkumar, who was arrayed as accused No. 4 in Crime No. 94/2024 at Vidhana Soudha Police Station. The complaint, filed on 8 October 2024 by Smt. Seema H., an Assistant Conservator of Forest, alleged offences of forgery under Sections 336(2) and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, use of a forged document under Section 340 of the BNS, and offences under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting singly, found that the entirety of the petitioner's conduct consisted of filing a vakalath for his clients in a matrimonial case and obtaining school records through an RTI application — acts squarely within professional duty. The writ petition was allowed and proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The background to the complaint stretches back to 2017. Accused No. 3, one Vinod V., was the subject of a missing complaint filed by his family against the complainant, Seema H. Thereafter, Vinod filed complaints against Seema in Crime Nos. 134 and 137 of 2017. On 7 October 2017, Seema filed a matrimonial case, M.C. No. 4953/2017, before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that her marriage had been solemnised with Vinod.
Pradeepkumar entered the picture at this stage. He filed a vakalath for Vinod in the matrimonial case and filed a detailed statement of objections on Vinod's behalf. When Seema subsequently filed a private complaint, PCR No. 30/2018, against Vinod and his family members alleging dowry demand and caste-based abuse — which became Crime No. 102/2018 for offences under Section 498A of the IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the Atrocities Act — Pradeepkumar again appeared for accused Nos. 2 and 3 in that proceeding.
On instructions from his clients, Pradeepkumar filed an RTI application to a school, Sri Vidhya Mandira, seeking information about the complainant's caste. The school initially furnished incomplete information; a second application yielded complete information relating to the complainant's caste. The complaint in Crime No. 94/2024 followed almost immediately, on 8 October 2024, naming Pradeepkumar as accused No. 4 alongside three others.
The complaint alleged that unknown persons had misused the complainant's name, official designation, and signature, and had forged documents to damage her reputation and obstruct her government service. The complainant also suspected that the accused were obtaining her departmental records — log books and diaries — through RTI applications to monitor her movements.
Pradeepkumar filed Writ Petition No. 29541 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the FIR. On 5 November 2024, this Court passed a detailed interim order staying further investigation and all further proceedings in Crime No. 94/2024 against the petitioner. That stay remained in force through the final hearing.
The Legal Issues
Three distinct legal questions arose. First, whether the conduct attributed to the petitioner — appearing as counsel and filing an RTI application — could attract the ingredients of forgery under Section 336(2) and (3) of the BNS, 2023. Second, whether the offence of using a forged document under Section 340 of the BNS could survive independently if the foundational forgery charge was not made out. Third, whether the complaint disclosed the essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Atrocities Act, namely that the alleged insult or caste-based abuse occurred “in any place within public view.”
The complainant's counsel argued that investigation had barely begun when the petition was filed, and that the petitioner's role — including the RTI query — went beyond what was necessary for presentation before a court. The State's Additional SPP contended that the crime had been registered and the matter ought to be permitted to be investigated, leaving the petitioner free to approach the court at an appropriate stage.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Nagaprasanna set out Section 336 of the BNS in full. Sub-section (1) defines forgery as the making of a false document or false electronic record with intent to cause damage, injury, or unlawful prejudice. Sub-sections (2) and (3) prescribe punishment for forgery simpliciter and for forgery committed with intent to use the forged document for cheating, respectively.
The court found that the role attributed to the petitioner was “singularly confined” to procuring documents from the school where the complainant had studied, and that too at the instance of his clients in his professional capacity. The complaint was, in the court's words, “conspicuously silent” as to any participation, connivance, fabrication, or fraudulent intent on the petitioner's part. The invocation of Section 336(3) — which requires forgery with intent to use the document for cheating — was described as “wholly incomprehensible in law” against the petitioner. Since the foundation under Section 336(2) was not met, the offence under Section 340 of the BNS, which revolves around the use or existence of a forged document, could not independently survive.
On the Atrocities Act charges, the court turned to the requirement that the alleged insult or caste-based abuse must occur “in any place within public view.” It relied on two recent Supreme Court decisions. In Karuppudayar v. State (2025 SCC Online SC 215), the Supreme Court had held that the place must be open so that members of the public can witness or hear the utterance; if the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of a wall where members of the public are not present, the ingredient is not satisfied. In Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (2026 SCC Online SC 834), the Supreme Court reiterated that the requirement of occurrence “in a place within public view” is a sine qua non for constituting the offence under the SC/ST Act, and that this element substantiates the other ingredients of intentional insult, intimidation, and humiliation.
Applying that standard, the court found that the complaint contained not even a whisper of any overt act by the petitioner that could constitute an insult or caste-based abuse in a place within public view. The allegations pertaining to the Atrocities Act were, in the court's assessment, woven in the most fragile and nebulous manner. Permitting investigation to continue against the petitioner in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.
Before concluding, Justice Nagaprasanna recorded what he described as deep disquiet at a disturbing trend: advocates who merely represent parties before courts are being dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as accused, with their only “fault” being that they appeared for their clients. The court observed that such conduct strikes at the independence of the bar and, by extension, the purity of the administration of justice. Advocates are officers of the court who act within professional duty and within the four corners of law. Exposing them to criminal prosecution merely for appearing for a litigant would have a chilling and paralysing effect on the fearless discharge of professional responsibilities.
The court directed specific observations at the complainant, Smt. Seema H., noting that she is a public servant. Her decision to implicate the petitioner as accused No. 4 without even a semblance of lawful justification was characterised as displaying a reckless misuse of authority and an abuse of coercive powers vested in the State machinery. The court admonished her and observed that any repetition of such conduct, bereft of legal foundation, would invite strict judicial scrutiny.
Order
The writ petition was allowed. Proceedings in Crime No. 94/2024 pending before the 41st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, against the petitioner Pradeepkumar, stand quashed. The court clarified that the observations made in the order are confined to the case of the petitioner and shall not bind, apply to, or influence the other accused in the same crime.