Court’s stern message
The Karnataka High Court has directed its Registrar General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against a lawyer, observing that an advocate’s duty is to assist the court rather than insist that it pass an order in the lawyer’s favour. Justice H.P. Sandesh made the observations while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR.
What was the criminal case?
The petition arose from a criminal case involving allegations under Sections 120B, 200, 404, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 426, 464, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The court had issued notice to the respondent complainant, but was informed that the complainant died on 3 May 2021. A copy of the death certificate was placed on record.
Dispute over legal representatives
Following the complainant’s death, the court gave the petitioner time to take necessary procedural steps. According to the reported order, counsel repeatedly sought additional time but ultimately contended that an application to bring the deceased complainant’s legal representatives on record was unnecessary. The court considered precedents concerning the right of legal heirs to continue a prosecution in a warrant case. It also noted the distinction between the heirs themselves and applications made through power-of-attorney holders.
Why the High Court declined to decide the merits
Justice Sandesh reasoned that the matter could not be decided on merits without an opportunity being afforded to the deceased complainant’s legal heirs. In the circumstances of this case, the court held that necessary parties had to be brought on record first. The bench also criticised the manner in which the petitioner’s lawyer expressed dissatisfaction and described the conduct as rude.
Contempt direction is not a final conviction
The High Court dismissed the quashing petition and directed the Registrar General to initiate contempt proceedings against the advocate. The direction begins a separate process; the reported order does not by itself establish a final conviction or punishment for criminal contempt. The case illustrates the difference between firmly arguing a legal position and conduct that the court considers an affront to its proceedings.
Why the decision matters
The ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness, the opportunity of affected parties to be heard, and professional courtroom conduct. It should not be read as a general rule that advocates cannot question a court’s view: lawyers remain entitled to make reasoned submissions, raise objections and pursue lawful remedies.
Adv. Mahesh Dhannawat’s perspective
Commenting on the broader significance of the ruling, Adv. Mahesh Sitaram Dhannawat of Jalna said that advocates have a professional responsibility to assist the court with facts, law and procedural fairness. Robust advocacy and respectful disagreement are legitimate, but counsel cannot demand a particular result or disregard the rights of affected parties. Courts and Bar Associations should also encourage training in courtroom etiquette and procedural duties.
Case: V.M. Kumarswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2026:KHC:59045. Source: Verdictum, 21 October 2026. Editorial commentary attributed to Adv. Dhannawat is a proposed statement pending his verification.
सीधे अपनी Facebook फ़ीड में पाएँ — News Nation Online पेज को Follow करें।
Discover more from NewsNation Online
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
आपके लिए सुझाव
