Refused To Quash FIR Against Advocates: In District Judge Application Case: Karnataka HC

146
0
Share:
law relationship 24 v Mortgagor judge notice court bail material 7 child fathers taxfirecracker post investigation documents Passed rti jurisdiction dispute property landlord second dispute public school fir mother psychiatrist divorce evidence nursing

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings in the charge sheet filed against an advocate for allegedly furnishing false information in his application for the post of District Judge.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, emphasized the gravity of the accusation, stating, “The petitioner has deliberately suppressed the cases that were pending against him, therefore, it amounts to seeking to secure employment on account of misrepresentation.” This statement underlines the court’s stringent stance on maintaining honesty and integrity in the judicial selection process.

The case (Criminal Petition No.1644 of 2022) involved the petitioner, an advocate by profession, who was accused of failing to disclose his involvement in past criminal and civil proceedings while applying for the District Judge position. The court observed that such non-disclosure, especially by a practicing lawyer with substantial experience, cannot be overlooked.

The judgment went further to clarify the interpretation of Section 420 of the IPC, relating to cheating, in the context of judicial appointments. The court highlighted, “In cases where fraud and misrepresentation form the foundation for securing employment, can in a given case, be brought under the umbrella of the ingredients of cheating.”

In dismissing the petition, the court reinforced the critical nature of transparency and truthfulness in applications for judicial positions. The judgment serves as a precedent, emphasizing the high ethical standards expected from legal practitioners and the serious consequences of any deviation.

Justice Nagaprasanna also clarified that the observations made in the order are solely for the consideration of the case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and should not influence any ongoing proceedings against the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 18th November 2023

SRI PALAKSHA S.S. VS THE STATE BY VIDHANA SOUDHA P.S.

Download Judgment

Share: