Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

 

 

Latest Legal News