Karnataka High Court Orders Contempt Action Against Lawyer Who Refused to File Application in Pending Case
The Karnataka High Court has directed its Registrar General to start contempt proceedings against a lawyer who refused to file an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased complainant on record. The court said an advocate's duty is to assist the court and not to insist on getting an order of his choice.
A single bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh was hearing a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 120B, 200, 404, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 426, 464, 467 and 468.
The court had issued notice to the complainant, but it was reported that the complainant had died. A copy of the death certificate was placed on record, showing the complainant died on May 3, 2021. The court then gave one week to take the necessary steps. The petitioner's counsel repeatedly asked for time to file the required application, but later submitted that no such application was needed to bring the complainant's legal representatives on record.
The bench noted that the heirs themselves had not filed applications to continue the prosecution; those applications had been filed by their power of attorney holders. It observed that in a warrant case, when the complainant dies during proceedings, the legal representatives have the right to continue the prosecution. The court said the counsel's submission could not be accepted.
Since the counsel was not ready to file the necessary application despite being given enough opportunity, the bench refused to consider the matter on merits. It said that without giving an opportunity to the legal heirs, who must be brought in after the complainant's death, the case could not proceed. Without arraigning the legal representatives, there could be no proceedings, and no ground was made out to consider the matter on merits. The court also noted that the counsel expressed dissatisfaction in a rude manner.
Dismissing the petition and deprecating the counsel's conduct, the bench directed the Registrar General to initiate contempt proceedings against the lawyer. It said the conduct was deprecated and that the counsel had not followed the principles laid down in the judgments referred to, and had instead behaved rudely before the court.
Source: Verdictum