M. PRASANNA KUMAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.633 OF 2020


BETWEEN:

1. M. PRASANNA KUMAR,
S/O C. MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BANGARPET TALUK,
OFFICE AT: NIHARIKA LAW CHAMBERS,
BEHIND PACRD BANK, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX,
BANGARPET-563114.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR,
BANGARPET POLICE STATION,
BANGARPET-563114.

2. SRI. N. NARAYANAPPA,
S/O NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE,
GULLAHALLI POST, BUDIKOTE HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK-563 114.

3. STATE BAR COUNCIL OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU
REP. BY SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
R2 – SERVED;
SRI. G. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3)











Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN
PCR NO.224/2019 UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 120-B AND 511
OF IPC R/W SECTION 45 OF ADVOCATE ACT, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
BANGARPET.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.3/Bar
Council. The respondent No.2/complainant is served and
unrepresented.
2. The prayer sought in the petition is to quash the
entire proceedings in PCR No.224/2019 under Sections 419,
420, 120B and 511 of IPC read with Section 45 of the
Advocates Act, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Bangarpet.
3. The matter was referred for investigation under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. This Court would like to extract the
order of the Trial Court. Having filed the complaint, the
following order is passed:

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


“Complainant present. Perused complaint and
relevant documents along with the witness list and
affidavit. These documents prima facie shows that
there is an offence. Therefore cognizance taken
against offences punishable under Sec. 419, 420,
120(B), 511 of IPC read with Section 45 of Advocates
Act. Hence, office is directed to register the case as
PCR in Reg.No.II.
By acting under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C., refer the
matter to PSI of Bangarpet police station for
investigation.”


4. The complainant had filed a private complaint
before the Trial Court and the same is numbered as PCR
No.224/2019 and in the complaint invoked the offences under
Sections 419, 420, 120B and 511 of IPC read with Section 45 of
the Advocates Act. In the complaint it is stated that the
complainant being an advocate practicing before the Courts of
Bangarpet, KGF and all over Kolar District and his Karnataka
Bar Council Enrollment number is KAR/2094/1999. This Court
would like to extract paragraph No.3 of the complaint which is
the sum and substance of the allegation made against the
petitioner:
“3. It is further submitted that as per section 24
of Advocates Act and also All India Bar Examination

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


Rules 2010, whoever provisionally enrolled with
State Bar Council of India after 2010, shall pass the
ALL INDIA BAR EXAMINATION (AIBE) conducts by
ALL INDIA BAR COUNCIL and then only he is eligible
to practice. Though the accused person being
provisionally enrolled with the Karnataka State Bar
Council vide enrollment No.KAR/852/2011, he
without passing AIBE Examination as required under
law has been practicing before the Bangarapet, KGF
and Kolar courts illegally. Though he is not eligible
and qualified advocate to practice, he has been
practicing intentionally with the motive to commit
offence. Thereby he has cheated the Judges, clients,
advocate by misrepresentation and also he has
committed professional misconduct which is
penalize-able offence and the State Bar Council has
given an endorsement stating that his name is not
forthcoming in the list of AIBE examination passers
as such he has committed the offences punishable
under sections 419, 420, 120(b), 511 of IPC and also
section 45 of Advocates Act.”


5. In paragraph No.4 of the complaint it is stated that
he gave the complaint to the Bangarpet Police Station, who
instead of registering the case, issued the NCR No.392/2019
dated 05.10.2019 stating that they have registered as non-
cognizable case and hence, he had approached the higher
police officers regarding the issuance of NCR. But they did not

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


entertain and hence, complaint is filed before the Court. The
matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. This Court
has to take note of the order passed by the Trial Court when
the complaint was entertained and an observation is made that
the complaint averments were perused along with documents,
witness list and affidavit. The said documents prima facie
shows that there is an offence. Therefore, cognizance was
taken for the said offences. But that procedure is erroneous.
There cannot be any taking of cognizance while referring the
matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said order would
be a pre-cognizance order. The cognizance was taken and
subsequently passed an order referring the matter under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. But the option open to the Magistrate
is either to take cognizance or refer the matter under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. Though there is a procedural error, but
ultimately the matter was referred under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. The same is challenged before the Revisional Court.
The Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.67/2019
comes to the conclusion that revision petition is not
maintainable against the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
However, liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


order in accordance with law, if he is so advised. Hence, the
present petition is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that respondent No.2/complainant has launched an
malicious prosecution against the petitioner inspite of fully
aware that the allegations made against the petitioner being
under Advocates Act and the same cannot be tried by the Trial
Court, has incorporated the alleged offence punishable under
IPC. Though there is no ingredients in the complaint regarding
the said offences being committed, the Trial Court committed
an error in referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
The allegations in the complaint is that the petitioner has
committed professional misconduct under the Advocates Act
and if so, the said act of misconduct is punishable under
Section 35 of the Act and it is only to be tried and disposed of
by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council and not
by the Court. It is also contended that respondent No.2 in the
complainant himself has stated that the petitioner is duly
enrolled as an advocate under the Karnataka State Bar Council
vide enrollment No.KAR/852/2011 and the question of trying
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 45 of
the Advocates Act does not arise. Having read Section 45 of the

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


Advocates Act, it makes abundantly clear that it applies to only
the person who is not authorized to practice shall be
punishable. The learned counsel would contend that in the
certificate of enrollment, it is not stated as provisional
enrollment and when the same is not a provisional enrollment,
he can practice and also produced the copy of the enrollment
certificate before the Court. The learned counsel would contend
that subsequently he got through in the All India Bar
Examination and the Bar Council of India issued the certificate
on 30.03.2021.
7. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that when the word ‘provisional’ was omitted in the
certificate issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council, the
petitioner contacted the State Bar Council seeking clarification.
However, in the absence of any timely reply or communication
from the Bar Council, the petitioner continued to practice law
under the bonafide belief that his enrollment was unconditional
and that he was entitled to practice. The learned counsel also
vehemently contend that the petitioner’s practice during the
intervening period, without clearing the AIB Examination was at
best a procedural lapse and did not involve any fraudulent
intention or mens rea. The learned counsel submits that the

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


petitioner neither fabricated any document nor made any
deliberate false representation to any client or Court. Hence,
the question of invoking the offences under Sections 419 and
420 of IPC does not arise. The learned counsel submits that the
Karnataka State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India are
empowered to examine allegations of professional misconduct
under the said Act and that the institution of a private criminal
complaint in respect of what is essentially a regulatory violation
amounts to an abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court has
to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise it amounts to an
abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.3/State Bar
Council submits that the contents of the complaint is very clear
that the petitioner had practiced in various Courts for about 10
years without clearing the mandatory AIB Examination in
violation of the applicable rules of the Bar Council of India. The
learned counsel also contend that the petitioner is not entitled
to practice, notwithstanding the alleged absence of the
requisite qualification to continue such practice. Once the
petitioner has accepted the profession, he has to maintain the
ethics and he did not maintain the ethics and continued to
practice for more than a decade without appearing for the AIB

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


Examination. The learned counsel also contend that the
petitioner subsequently cleared the AIB Examination in 2021
and the same cannot retrospectively validate his practice and
the same will not extinguish his criminal liability that had
already arisen. The learned counsel would contend that the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council does not exclude
criminal jurisdiction where the allegations independently
discloses the commission of an offence. The learned counsel
would contend that not only the offence under the Bar Council
Act, but even the offences under the IPC also attracts in view of
cheating the general public as well as the institution and also
the client who believes that he is an advocate.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State submits that when the
complaint was filed making the allegation of cheating and it
amounts to cheating at large and person who is not competent
and eligible, cannot practice before the Court of law, that too in
a institution where justice is dispensed. Hence, the very
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
complaint is not maintainable before the criminal Court cannot
be accepted. The investigating agency can investigate and
initiate the criminal prosecution.

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and so also considering the pleadings and the grounds,
which have been urged in the petition, the points that would
arise for the consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the complainant can invoke criminal
jurisdiction against the petitioner invoking the
offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as
under the Advocates Act, 1961, in view of
practice without clearing the AIB Examination?


(ii) Whether the complainant has got locus-standi
to institute a criminal complaint against the
petitioner without approaching the Bar Council,
in view of suspension of his enrollment on
account of not clearing the AIB Examination?


(iii) Whether this Court can exercise the inherent
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of
the petitioner in view of the factual aspects of
the case?

Point Nos.(i) to (iii):
11. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged by the petitioner as well as respondents and so also the
prayer sought for the relief of quashing the entire proceedings
initiated against the petitioner and referring the matter under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and the scope of

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court has
to analyze the factual aspects of the case.
12. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged, it discloses that the allegation against the petitioner is
that he has committed professional misconduct as alleged in
the PCR No.224/2019. In keeping paragraph 3 of the
complaint, wherein the accusation made for the offence under
Section 45 of the Advocates Act as well as Sections 419, 420,
120B and 511 of IPC, this Court has to consider the material on
record.
13. In the complaint, the complainant has produced
documents of endorsement issued by the Karnataka State Bar
Council, copies of vakalath and so also the NCR issued by the
police dated 05.10.2019 and copy of the complaint given to the
PSI of Bangarapet Police Station. Thus, it is clear that before
filing the private complaint, the complainant has approached
the police and after the issuance of NCR as per Document No.2,
invoked Section 200 of Cr.P.C for filing a private complaint. The
same is also questioned before the Revisional Court and the
Revisional Court comes to the conclusion that there cannot be a

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


revision as against referring the matter under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C.
14. Having considered the complaint and grounds urged
in the petition, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has
enrolled as an advocate in 2011 and the same is subsequent to
the Rules made by the Bar Council of India in 2010 prescribing
the condition to qualify in the examination conducted within
two years from the date of enrollment. In case, if the same is
not qualified within two years, the enrollment would be
suspended and he cannot practice as an advocate and file
vakalath. Hence, the court has to take note of specific
accusation made in the complaint particularly, in paragraph 3.
15. It is also not in dispute that petitioner had practiced
as an advocate almost for a period of 10 years, though he is
only entitled to practice for a period of two years and within
that period, he has to qualify in the AIB examination. The
petitioner also not disputes the fact that he had continued the
practice even after he has not qualified. Apart from that,
petitioner categorically admits that he did not take up the
exams for almost a decade but he only qualified in the said
examination in 2021. Hence, there is no dispute with regard to

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


the factual aspects as well as allegations made in the
complaint. The private complaint is filed invoking the IPC
offences as well as Section 45 of the Advocates Act.
16. The contention of the petitioner's counsel that there
cannot be any criminal prosecution before the court for those
offences and if any grievances, ought to have approach the
Karnataka State Bar Council. Now, the question before the
Court is whether the complainant is having any locus standi to
file such complaint before the court. It is also important to note
that Bar Council of India, vide Resolution No.73/2010 dated
05.06.2010 published in the Gazette of India, Part III, Section
4, dated 12-18.06.2010, AIBE Rules were framed and the
application for certificate of practice is also very clear that the
said certificate of practice shall be issued by the Bar Council of
India to the address of the successful advocate within 30 days
from the date of declaration of results having successful in the
said examination. But in the case on hand, no such
examination was passed by the petitioner and issued any such
certificate within the prescribed period.
17. Now, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court is
concerned, this Court would like to rely upon the judgment of

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


the Apex Court reported in (1984) 2 SCC 500 in the case of A
R ANTULAY vs RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK AND
ANOTHER wherein also discussion was made with regard to
the cognizance of offence can be taken upon a private
complaint. So also, discussed with regard to locus is concerned.
In this judgment it is held that private complainant has equal
standing before the court in absence of any clear and specific
statutory provision to the contrary and discussed plain meaning
also that in the absence of any clear and specific exclusionary
provision in the statute, court should plainly treat it as a
general provision instead of delving in search of any possible
hidden or implied exclusion. The Apex Court discussed locus
standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal
jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating
an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by
necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by
such statutory provision for, it is a well recognized principle of
criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal
law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating
an offence indicates to the contrary. This one is in detail
discussed in the judgment by the Apex Court in paragraph 6.
The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences
to court. The Apex Court also discussed the scope of Section
190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is very clear
that anyone can have locus standi and also can set law into
motion.
18. This Court also would like to rely upon Madhya
Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of RAJENDRA
SINGH vs SURENDRA SINGH reported in 1992 M.P.L.J. 650
wherein also discussion was made with regard to the right to
practice in courts and categorically held that only advocates are
entitled to practice in courts and discussion was made with
regard to Sections 45, 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act. It is
also held that Section 45 of the Act is a penal provision which
prescribes a penalty for a person illegally practicing in a court
or before other authority. In this judgment held that Judicial
Magistrate First Class is permitted to proceed with the case
under Section 45 of the Act and powers are given to the
Magistrate to deal with Section 45 of the Act.
19. This Court also would like to rely upon the
judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1998) 4 SCC 409 in
the case of SUPREME Court BAR ASSOCIATION vs UNION

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


OF INDIA AND ANOTEHR wherein the Apex Court in detail
discussed in paragraph 45 that whether an advocate is also
guilty of professional misconduct and exercising the powers by
the Bar Council and held that the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India to take action
for professional misconduct is different from the jurisdiction of
the courts to take action against the advocates for the
contempt of Court. The said jurisdictions coexist independently
of each other. The action taken under one jurisdiction does not
bar an action under the other jurisdiction.
20. This court also would like to rely upon the judgment
of the Apex Court reported in (2023) 7 SCC 756 in the case of
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA vs BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE
AND OTHERS wherein also Apex Court discussed with regard
to Section 24 of the Advocates Act as well as Section 49. In this
Judgment also the Apex Court made thought process in keeping
Section 24 of the Advocates Act. Quality of lawyers is an
important aspect and part of administration of justice and
access to justice. Half-baked lawyers serve no purpose. It is
this quality control, which has been the endeavour of all the
efforts made over a period of time. The same is discussed in
paragraph 28 of the judgment. Also discussed the prominent

- 17 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


role of the Bar Council of India, the Apex body, is apparent
from the functions prescribed for the Bar Council of India under
Section 7 of the said Act. The same is discussed in paragraph
29. So also, in paragraph 31 discussed in respect of clause (d)
of sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the said Act that Bar Council
of India sought to introduce the All India Bar Examination,
which would be uniformly applicable irrespective of the
recognized educational institutions from which a person would
complete Law before he was enrolled at the Bar. The Apex
Court also discussed with regard to Section 49(1)(ah) of the
said Act for providing a post-enrollment examination if the
answers to the first two questions are in negative. Section 49
deals with the general powers of the Bar Council of India to
make rules and clause (ah) specifically deals with the
conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to
practice and the circumstances under which a person can be
deemed to practice as an advocate in a court. The Apex Court
in detail discussed the issue with regard to the conducting of
the said examination and such examination could be conducted
by the Bar Council of India. That it would make the Bar Council
of India more conscious of the importance of the role it has to
perform, including ensuring that the only persons who are well

- 18 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


equipped with the tools of law pass the All India Bar
examination.
21. This Court also would like to rely upon the
judgment of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in BAIL APPL.
No.5868/2021 delivered on 17.09.2021 . The similar issue
was raised. A lady who is not a graduate in law and not
enrolled as an advocate before the Bar Council of Kerala is
practicing in the courts in the district and then invoked the
offences under Sections 417, 419 and 420 of IPC. The Kerala
High Court also considered in paragraph 15, an observation is
made that lawyers’ profession is considered to be one of the
noblest profession. Lawyers have to play a pivotal role in the
administration of justice as only with their sincere and
purposeful effort and assistance the courts could administer
justice properly. They owe onerous responsibility and duty
towards courts and they are considered as the officers of the
courts. Their first responsibility is towards their clients and then
to the courts. So misrepresenting or presenting as an advocate
before a client and obtaining a brief as if she is an advocate,
itself would amount to cheating towards the public. As
observed above, prima facie the materials so far gathered by
the investigating agency indicate that she has cheated the Bar

- 19 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


Association, Alappuzha, the clients approached her with brief,
the entire judiciary especially the District Judiciary, Alappuzha
and the General Public.
22. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of
Allahabad High Court reported in 2026 SCC ONLINE ALL
25632 YOGENDRA vs STATE OF U.P. AND
in the case of
OTHERS wherein also discussion was made with regard to right
to practice and other rights of advocates in view of All India Bar
Examination and so also discussed Sections 24, 30, 32, 45 and
49 of the Advocates Act. Allahabad High Court also formulated
the points in paragraph 11 with regard to similar question that
whether the law students who graduated during the academic
session, 2009-10 or thereafter and enrolled as an advocate
under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 would be entitled
to continue practice without qualifying the All India Bar
Examination. The first point for consideration is in respect of
the very same issue. The Allahabad High Court also taken note
of as per Rule 9 of All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 that
shall not be entitled to practice in court unless qualifies the All
India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India.
Even if a law graduate is enrolled under Section 24 of the Act is
not entitled to practice in court unless qualifies the All India Bar

- 20 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


examination if that law graduate obtained law degree during
the academic session and also taken note of Rule 11 of the All
India Bar Examination Rules 2010, a certificate of practice shall
be issued by the Bar Council of India to successful advocates
within 30 days of declaration of result, and that certificate of
practice issued by the Bar Council of India gives the right to
practice as an advocate in any court of law in India during its
validity for a period of 5 years and taken note of Rules 9, 10
and 11 of All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010.
23. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, it is very clear that the complainant
can invoke criminal jurisdiction against the petitioner, invoking
the offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the
Advocates Act, 1961, in view of practicing without clearing the
AIB examination. The judgments which have been referred
supra are very clear that the complainant has got locus standi
to institute a criminal complaint against the petitioner, even
without approaching the Karnataka State Bar Council. In the
case on hand, the complainant had approached the police, but
police have not taken any action but issued the NCR. Hence the
complainant was made to approach the Court.

- 21 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


24. This Court also would like to rely upon Certificate of
Practice and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015,
published in the Gazette of India dated 12.01.2015, New Delhi.
Rule 5 of the said Rule is also very clear that there is necessary
of certificate of practice. The disability to practice law would
come into force only when the name of such advocate is
published under Rule 20.4. Having perused Rule 20.4, it is very
clear that the list of non-practicing advocates and name of
advocate whose application for issuance/verification of
certificate of practice stands dismissed under Rule 13 shall also
be published by the State Bar Council as per law after of such
list and consequences of failure to respond and publication of
list of non-practicing advocates also taken note of in Rule 20.
The State Bar Council is also having a responsibility to do the
same.
25. This Court also would like to rely upon the letter
addressed to the Presidents / Secretaries of All Recognized Bar
Associations in the State of Karnataka by the Karnataka State
Bar Council, dated 07.08.2026 wherein also it is clarified that
the effect of failure to pass AIB examination within two years,
automatically it will be suspended of license to practice and so
also it does not require any cancellation or re-enrollment but

- 22 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


cannot practice and also disciplinary action under Section 35 is
also taken note of. It is very clear that suspension does not
mean cancellation of enrollment but it is very clear that
suspension of certificate of practice automatically ceases and
full practice rights are restored without requiring fresh
enrollment but the advocate should get fresh enrollment
certificate from the Bar Council having successful in the said
examination. Bar Council of India also vide letter dated
29.07.2026 made clear in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in a case of BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE AND OTHER
referred supra that if the advocate fails to pass AIB
examination within the prescribed two years period, after
accounting for any period specifically excluded or extended by
the Bar Council of India, the advocate's license and entitlement
to practice shall remain under suspension until the advocate
passes AIB examination. Upon subsequently passing AIB
examination and completing the prescribed formalities, the
suspension of the right to practice shall cease and the advocate
shall be entitled to resume practice. During the period of
suspension, however, the advocate cannot sign or file a
vakalatnama, act or plead before any court, tribunal or
authority, advise or represent clients as an advocate, undertake

- 23 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


litigious or non-litigious professional work or hold himself or
herself out as being entitled to practice law.
26. Having taken note of the principles laid in the
judgments referred supra as well as the Rules and thereafter
clarificatory orders issued, it is very clear that in view of the
judgments of Apex Court as well as the judgments of different
High Courts, it is very clear that the principle emerging from
the decisions that disciplinary authority conferred upon the Bar
Council cannot be assumed by a court merely because the
conduct complained of relates to the legal profession. Equally,
the existence of a disciplinary mechanism does not, by itself,
extinguish the jurisdiction of a competent criminal court to
examine conduct which independently satisfies the ingredients
of a criminal offence. The nature of the proceeding, the
statutory provision invoked and the relief sought must
therefore be examined before determining whether the
jurisdiction of criminal court is attracted. In keeping Section
6(1)(c) of the Advocates Act 1961, confers upon the State Bar
Council the function of entertaining and determining cases of
misconduct against advocates on its roll wherein powers are
vested with the Bar Council under Section 35. So also the Court
has to take note of statutory mechanism for disciplinary action

- 24 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


against the advocates as well as the applicability of Section 45
of the Advocates Act, 1961, must be considered separately. The
said provision prescribes punishment for a person who practices
in a court or before an authority or person when such person is
not entitled to practice under the provisions of the Act. When
such being the case, the complainant can invoke both Section
45 of the Advocates Act as well as IPC offences. In the case on
hand, though the petitioner was enrolled and his enrollment is
only for practice for two years and thereafter his practice
ceases to be in view of not clearing the examination prescribed
under the Rule. Under such circumstances, Section 45 of the
Advocates Act pressed into service. This Court also taken note
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A R ANTULAY
referred supra wherein also principle recognizes that a criminal
offence is not necessarily an injury confined to the individual
directly affected by the Act. It is nothing but an offence against
the society at large, i.e., against the institution and it is not
only a personal suffering of an injury unless the law provides
otherwise, the Court can exercise the power under Section 190
and Magistrate can take cognizance. But in the case on hand,
only the matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
for investigation. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer and

- 25 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


domain of the Investigating Officer to investigate that whether
it attracts Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and other
offences and also whether it attracts Section 45 of the
Advocates Act. Maintainability of the complaint under Section
45 of the Advocates Act must be considered independently of
the allegations under Section 420 of IPC while filing the report
before the learned Magistrate. Hence, the Court has got
jurisdiction to order for investigation under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. entertaining the complaint and no need to even exhaust
the remedy before the State Bar Council only and State Bar
Council is not only having exclusive jurisdiction, even courts
also have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter when such
factual aspects is not in dispute. Hence, I answer the above
points accordingly.
27. It is also the duty of the Karnataka State Bar
Council to make a mechanism to identify such practice, if such
persons who have been enrolled are not completed and get
through in the examination. It is not the only duty of the
Karnataka State Bar Council to enroll and it is also the duty of
the State Bar Council to maintain a roll in respect of those who
are eligible and not eligible to practice. If such persons are
continued to practice without clearing the AIB examination,

- 26 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020


make specific mechanism, identify such persons and take
immediate action against them. But in the case on hand, it is
unfortunate that the petitioner had practiced for more than a
decade without appearing for AIB examination and also even
not got the qualification to continue to practice for about a
decade. Hence, it is appropriate to give directions to the
Karnataka State Bar Council having taken note of the factual
aspects of the present case. Hence, this Court would like to
issue Guidelines to the Karnataka State Bar Council for specific
mechanism to identify such persons.
28. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER

1) The criminal petition is dismissed.

2) The jurisdictional police are permitted to proceed
against the petitioner in accordance with law and
submit the report before the Trial Court expeditiously.

3) The following directions are issued to the Karnataka
State Bar Council to evolve a mechanism to identify
such persons who are practicing illegally without
getting the qualification as per the Rules of the All
India Bar Council to practice:

- 27 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020



(i) The Karnataka State Bar Council, in respect of
having enrolled the advocate and when the
same is provisional enrollment in terms of the
rule, make an appropriate mechanism in
order to prevent the illegal practice, if they
have not qualified in AIB examination ;

(ii) The State Bar Council is directed to maintain
a record digitally for having made the date of
enrollment and expiry period of two years;

(iii) The State Bar Council is directed to track such
advocates who have enrolled but not qualified
to continue the practice and prepare the list
of suspended role of advocates in order to
curb the illegal practice;

(iv) The State Bar Council make a specific
mechanism that it should come to notice of
Bar Council automatically, the expiry of the
said period of two years in order to enable
the Bar Council to take action against such
persons who have indulged in such illegal
practice;

- 28 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020



(v) The State Bar Council is directed to take
immediate steps to initiate action against
such persons who have not qualified to
continue the practice since it is an offence
against the society at large;

(vi) The State Bar Council is directed to maintain
an integrated enrollment record and make
verification of examination results by
appropriate mechanism for verifying the AIB
examination results with the aid of Bar
Council of India;

(vii) The State Bar Council is directed to make
periodical review identifying the cases in
which prescribed period for clearing the AIB
examination has expired and get the available
records for initiation of action;

(viii) The State Bar Council also make such
mechanism to give an opportunity to the said
advocates to explain the discrepancies before
taking any action against them to meet the
principles of natural justice;

- 29 -
CRL.P No. 633 of 2020



(ix) The State Bar Council is directed to make a
mechanism of final determination to the
concerned advocates to entitlement to
practice if such discrepancies are clarified and
if they are eligible to practice;

(x) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
order to the State Bar Council forthwith to
evolve the mechanism in compliance of the
direction of this Court.

(xi) The State Bar Council is directed to report to
this Court having evolved the mechanism
within a period of 45 days.
List the matter on 30.11.2026.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE

MD/SN