The Court ruled that implicating an advocate for discharging professional duties without substantial evidence undermines the independence of the Bar.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR against Advocate Mayur D Bhanu, who was accused in a criminal proceeding based on an alleged telephonic threat. The court found the allegations to be unsubstantial and devoid of any material evidence, deeming the proceedings an abuse of the legal process.
The case, titled Mayur D Bhanu v. State of Karnataka, involved a writ petition filed by the advocate, challenging the registration of a crime against him under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The allegations emerged from a complaint by the second respondent, claiming that the advocate, in collusion with others, threatened him over a financial dispute.
Presiding over the matter, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the sole basis for implicating the petitioner was a telephonic conversation, with no overt acts or substantial evidence to support claims of intimidation or cheating. The Court emphasized that such proceedings against an advocate solely for providing legal advice to a client undermined the independence of the Bar and constituted an abuse of legal proceedings.
The judgment highlighted the lack of any direct transaction or intent to deceive on the part of Advocate Bhanu, which are essential components for charges under Section 318(4) concerning cheating. Similarly, the court found no intention or material evidence supporting the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) of the BNS.
The Court stressed the importance of protecting advocates from frivolous and vexatious proceedings that arise solely from their professional obligations. It warned against the chilling effect such cases could have on the legal profession, potentially discouraging advocates from fulfilling their duties fearlessly.
Justice Nagaprasanna's decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the legal profession's independence and ensuring that the criminal justice system is not misused as a tool for personal vendettas. The judgment serves as a reminder of the critical balance between professional duties and legal accountability, reiterating that mere representation of a client cannot be criminalized in the absence of substantive proof.
The FIR, registered as Crime No.162 of 2026, has been quashed with respect to Advocate Mayur D Bhanu, bringing relief to the legal community concerned about the implications of such allegations on the practice of law.
Bottom line:-
Advocate implicated in criminal proceedings solely for discharging professional duties - Allegations against the petitioner, an Advocate, were based on an alleged telephonic threat with no material evidence or overt acts - Court held such proceedings to be an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR against the petitioner.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 318(4), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS).
Mayur D Bhanu v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2957771
