The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case of cheating and criminal intimidation registered against an advocate, ruling that the legal profession would lose its independence if lawyers face criminal prosecution for intervening on behalf of their clients.
In an order issued on August 5, Justice M Nagaprasanna set aside the proceedings against advocate Mayur D Bhanu, observing that discontented litigants must not be allowed to misuse the criminal justice system to intimidate or retaliate against court officers. The court emphasized that allowing unsubstantiated claims to turn into criminal investigations would create a chilling effect on lawyers discharging their professional duties.
Legal Basis for Cheating Unfulfilled
Examining the merits of the allegations, the high court noted that the offense of cheating fundamentally requires a transaction between the accused and the complainant, accompanied by dishonest intent right from its inception.
In Bhanu’s case, the bench found no transaction existed between the advocate and the complainant, Shrenik Chandrashekar. The court stated that the grievance was limited to an alleged phone threat, making the inclusion of cheating charges factually and legally unsustainable.
Monetary Dispute and Counter-Complaint
The case originated from a financial dispute between Chandrashekar and Bhanu’s client, Gaurav. On February 3, Chandrashekar visited Gaurav’s residence alongside a police constable and another individual to recover money. During the visit, Gaurav phoned Bhanu and asked the officer to speak with his counsel.
Roughly a month later, Gaurav registered a police case against Chandrashekar over an alleged physical assault that took place on March 2. On May 12—more than three months after the initial encounter—Chandrashekar filed a counter-complaint alleging that Gaurav and Bhanu had cheated and threatened him during the February 3 visit.
Unexplained Delay and Judicial Precedent
Addressing the timing of the complaint, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that if Chandrashekar had genuinely felt threatened during the phone conversation, he could have sought legal recourse immediately. The court held that the unexplained three-month delay, combined with vague assertions, strongly indicated exaggeration and afterthought.
Representing Bhanu, advocate Keerthi Krishna Reddy submitted to the court that his client was implicated solely as a collateral consequence of providing legal counsel to his client.
Citing the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the high court affirmed that constitutional courts are duty-bound to scrutinize underlying circumstances when criminal proceedings are initiated with malicious intent or out of vengeance, ensuring the legal system is not weaponized as an instrument of oppression.
