'Mischievous And Preposterous': Karnataka HC Lambasts Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences For Registering FIR Against Panel Counsel

The Karnataka High Court has rapped the administration of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) for indulging in acts of registering cases against the advocates who represent it before the court, when the decision delivered is not in its favour.

"The University or the Registrar who has now sought to explain out the circumstances, is admonished and is directed to exercise caution while registering such reckless complaints in hottest haste. Any such iteration of the kind of haste, as seen in the case at hand, would be viewed seriously," said the court.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Advocate Shivakumar, who had been representing the varsity for over 15 years, and quashed the FIR registered against him by the university for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 196, 201, 205 of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench said that merely because cases are lost, the counsel cannot be accused of fraud, cheating, impersonation or of other reckless allegations that are made.

"The University is hereby cautioned not to indulge in such acts by registering complaints in a hottest haste and maligning the names of Advocates who appear for them, after appointing them to its panel to represent the Courts, unless the University has adequate information or substance which can prima facie demonstrate that there has been fraud played by its panel counsel or the University has been cheated by the panel counsel," said the court.

The bench also said that the act of the petitioner in representing the University before the Court, and the Court allowing the petitions following an earlier judgment - holding the issue to be covered, can never lead to registration of the crime.

The Case

The petitioner Shivakumar has been a practising advocate for the past 27 years. Recently, several petitions were filed before the Dharwad Bench of the court seeking quashing of proceedings registered against several persons, who were accused of malpractice in the conduct of Post Graduate Entrance Test ('PGET-2010).

A Coordinate Bench of the Court allowed the petitions and quashed criminal proceedings that were pending, relying upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench in a Writ Petition decided on 27.07.2021. While the government was represented by its counsel in the cases, the Vice-Chancellor of RGUHS was either represented or the court directed Shivakumar to accept the notice, owing to the fact that he was representing the university in the cases for long.

The orders were passed on 7th, 18th, 20th and 21st April, 2022 allowing those petitions following the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.19700 of 2018.

After the disposal of all the petitions, Shivakumar communicated to the University that the Court has allowed the petitions and he had appeared for the University. Shivakumar was shown to have appeared for the university in all the cases except one.

As soon as Shivakumar sent the communication to the university, he was removed from the panel. The Registrar also registered a complaint against him for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 196, 199, 201 and 205 of the IPC, alleging he has connived with the opponents and has seen to it that the criminal petitions are allowed. The complaint was registered on 27.07.2022.

Findings

The bench on going through the complaint filed by the University before the police said, "What pervades through the entire complaint is preposterity and absolute recklessness of the complainant/University, which is represented by the Registrar."

Referring to Section 415 which directs whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, becomes open for such punishment under Section 417, the bench said, "Who has deceived whom in the case at hand is not even known and likewise who has induced whom is not even alleged. Section 417 of the IPC is alleged in thin air."

Section 196 of the IPC deals with using evidence known to be false. The bench said "What the petitioner has done in the case at hand is accepting or appearing in cases where the issue in those cases stood covered by a judgment rendered by this Court which had become final. Therefore, Section 196 of the IPC cannot even be seen to be alleged against the petitioner."

Section 199 deals with false statements made in declarations which are by law receivable as evidence. The bench said: "There is no false declaration made before any Court of justice by the petitioner. In a covered matter there need not be even any statement made. The University was served and unrepresented in most of the cases. In such a case, it was open to this Court to even dispose of the petition without notifying any counsel."

Section 201 of the IPC deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen the offender.

The bench said "It is beyond comprehension as to how this offence is alleged against the petitioner who has appeared before Court of law and the Court recorded his name in a matter that stood covered by the earlier judgment. It cannot be even seen in what way disappearance of evidence is caused by the petitioner."

Section 205 IPC deals with false personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution. The bench said, "The petitioner has not impersonated anybody. His name does figure as appearing for the 2nd respondent on it being recorded by the Court."

All these offences that are alleged are alleged without any basis and it is on the face of it a mischievous and preposterous act of the University to say the least, said Justice Nagaprasanna

Police ought to have inquired before registering FIR

Noting that the complaint was registered before the jurisdictional Police on 27.07.2022 and 48 hours later, the FIR was registered, the bench referring to judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of ARNESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR and in the case of LALITA KUMARI V. STATE OF U.P., said:

"The Police ought to have enquired with the veracity of allegation before registering a crime against an Advocate without there being any substance in the allegation."

It added that the complaint on the face of it is tainted with mala fides and allegations are inherently improbable. "Even if the facts qua the allegations are noticed, they would not make out a crime against the petitioner," said the court.

The bench also said if such frivolous complaint is permitted to continue, it would be putting a premium on the mischief generated by the University, to settle its scores on a panel counsel who has represented the University before a Court of law and who has been representing the University for ages.

The court also criticised the university for the manner in which the lawyer was removed from the panel. It said:

"The cascading effect of registration of crime against the petitioner is that it is carried by majority of newspapers – that the University has filed a case against the lawyer as he had appeared before the High Court without permission and the news has now spread like the whirlwind. The reputation of the petitioner is thus maligned all for the reason that the crime is registered against the petitioner."

The court further said if further proceedings against the lawyer are permitted to continue, it would, on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law and result in grave miscarriage of justice.

"The petitioner being an officer of the Court had a duty towards the Court over and above the duty towards the client, more so being a panel counsel for long years, had a duty to balance the role of being an officer of the Court and the panel counsel," said the bench.

Quashing the FIR, the court said the university registered a complaint against its panel counsel without conducting any preliminary enquiry and made reckless allegations against him.

"The University cannot indulge in such acts of registering crime against the counsel who appears before the Court on its behalf and when the result in the suit or petition goes against the University. Merely because cases are lost, the counsel cannot be alleged of fraud, cheating, impersonation or of other reckless allegations that are made," it said.

Case Title: SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA