The Karnataka High Court has held that a private complainant can set the criminal law in motion against an advocate who practises without clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and that the Bar Council’s disciplinary powers do not bar criminal proceedings. Justice H.P. Sandesh dismissed a petition seeking to quash a private complaint against an advocate who practised for about a decade without passing the AIBE, and issued directions to the Karnataka State Bar Council to set up a mechanism to identify and act against such advocates.
Background
The petitioner, M. Prasanna Kumar, enrolled with the Karnataka State Bar Council in 2011. The complainant, an advocate practising in Bangarpet, KGF and Kolar District, alleged that the petitioner practised before these courts without passing the AIBE. He relied on a State Bar Council endorsement stating that the petitioner’s name did not appear in the list of AIBE passers.
When the Bangarpet police registered only a non-cognizable report, the complainant filed a private complaint under Sections 419, 420, 120B and 511 of the IPC read with Section 45 of the Advocates Act. The Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. A revision against that order was held not maintainable, and the petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Arguments
Advocate D. Prabhakar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the allegations amounted at most to professional misconduct, which only the State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee could decide under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. He submitted that the enrollment certificate did not describe the enrollment as provisional, that the petitioner kept practising under a bona fide belief that he was entitled to do so, and that he later passed the AIBE, with the Bar Council of India issuing a certificate on 30.03.2021. He argued that there was no fraudulent intention or mens rea.
Advocate G. Nataraj, appearing for the Karnataka State Bar Council, submitted that the petitioner practised for about 10 years without clearing the mandatory examination. He argued that passing the AIBE in 2021 could not retrospectively validate that practice or extinguish criminal liability, and that the Bar Council’s disciplinary jurisdiction does not exclude criminal jurisdiction.
High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M., appearing for the State, contended that the allegations amounted to cheating at large and that the investigating agency could investigate the matter.
Court’s Findings on AIBE and Criminal Liability
The Court noted that the facts were not in dispute: the petitioner enrolled in 2011, after the 2010 AIBE Rules, did not take the examination for almost a decade, and kept practising until he qualified in 2021.
The Court found procedural error in the Magistrate’s order, observing, “There cannot be any taking of cognizance while referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.” However, it noted that the matter was ultimately referred for investigation.
Relying on A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, the Court held that anyone can set the criminal law in motion unless the statute says otherwise. It also referred to Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, and rulings of the Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Allahabad High Courts.
Justice Sandesh observed that “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 Court held that the complainant had locus standi to file the complaint without first approaching the State Bar Council. It added that whether the IPC offences and Section 45 of the Advocates Act are made out is for the Investigating Officer to determine.
Directions to Karnataka State Bar Council
The Court remarked that “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.”
It dismissed the petition and allowed the police to proceed and file their report before the Trial Court expeditiously. It directed the State Bar Council to:
- digitally record each advocate’s date of enrollment and the expiry of the two-year period
- track advocates who have not qualified and prepare a list of suspended advocates
- set up an automatic alert when the two-year period expires
- verify AIBE results with the Bar Council of India and conduct periodic reviews
- give advocates an opportunity to explain discrepancies before action is taken
The State Bar Council must report compliance within 45 days. The matter will next be listed on 30.11.2026.
Case Title: M. Prasanna Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 633 of 2020
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh
Date: 17.10.2026
