Court Orders Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Against Petitioner's Counsel for Defying Court's Directions and Questioning Authority
In a significant judgment delivered on October 17, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice H.P. Sandesh, dismissed a criminal petition filed by V.M. Kumarswamy seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No. 384/2020. The case involved serious allegations including offences under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 200 (giving false information), 404 (concealment of property), 419 (cheating by impersonation), 420 (cheating), among others of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR originated from a complaint which was referred by the Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), indicating the presence of cognizable offences requiring police inquiry. During the pendency of the case, the complainant passed away on May 3, 2021, complicating the procedural course.
The petitioner's counsel argued against the necessity of bringing the legal heirs of the deceased complainant on record, contending that no statutory provision mandated such a step. However, the Court rejected this contention, relying heavily on precedents from the Supreme Court, including Chand Devi Daga v. Manju K. Humatani (2018), Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (2004), and Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra (1967). These judgments firmly establish that in warrant cases involving cognizable offences, the prosecution does not abate with the death of the complainant, and the legal heirs have the right to continue the prosecution by coming on record.
Justice Sandesh underscored that the petition could not be entertained on merits without the legal heirs being brought on record, as they have a legally recognized interest in continuing the prosecution. The Court also observed that despite granting multiple opportunities and sufficient time, the petitioner's counsel refused to file the necessary applications to bring the legal heirs on record. More seriously, the counsel exhibited disrespectful conduct by raising his voice and questioning the authority of the Court, which was strongly deprecated by the bench.
In response to this misconduct, the Court directed the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner's counsel to uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
This ruling reinforces the procedural safeguard that a prosecution, especially in serious criminal matters, must be allowed to continue through the deceased complainant's legal heirs. It also sends a stern message regarding professional conduct and respect for judicial authority expected from advocates.
Bottom Line:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Quashing of FIR - Where complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and cognizable offences were disclosed, petition to quash could not be considered on merits after death of complainant without bringing legal heirs on record - Legal heirs of deceased complainant have right to continue prosecution in warrant case - Petition dismissed - Conduct of counsel in refusing to comply with Court's direction and questioning authority of Court deprecated; direction issued to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 156(3), Sections 120B, 200, 404, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 426, 464, 467, 468, 302 IPC
V.M. Kumarswamy v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000488
