The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal petition filed by advocate M. Prasanna Kumar, who was accused of continuing to practise law without clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). Justice H.P. Sandesh held that the criminal complaint could proceed and permitted the jurisdictional police to investigate the allegations under the Indian Penal Code and the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Court also directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to establish a mechanism to identify advocates who continue practising after failing to meet the examination requirements.
Background
The complaint was filed by N. Narayanappa, an advocate practising in the Kolar district, before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Bangarpet. He alleged that Prasanna Kumar, enrolled with the Karnataka State Bar Council in 2011, continued appearing before courts without passing the AIBE, which is required under the applicable rules.
The complaint invoked Sections 419, 420, 120-B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 45 of the Advocates Act. After the police issued a non-cognizable report instead of registering the case, the complainant approached the Magistrate, who referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Prasanna Kumar argued that the dispute primarily concerned professional misconduct and should be dealt with by the Bar Council. He also submitted that he had subsequently cleared the AIBE in 2021.
Justice Sandesh examined whether the complainant could initiate criminal proceedings without first approaching the Bar Council. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to distinguish disciplinary proceedings from criminal prosecution, observing that the two forms of jurisdiction can operate independently.
The judgment stated:
“The principle emerging from the decisions that disciplinary authority conferred upon the Bar Council cannot be assumed by a court merely because the conduct complained of relates to the legal profession. Equally, 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 further noted that the investigation must determine whether the allegations attract the relevant criminal provisions. It clarified that the complainant was entitled to approach the criminal court and was not required to exhaust the remedy before the State Bar Council first.
On the Bar Council’s responsibilities, the Court observed that maintaining enrolment records alone was insufficient without a system to identify advocates who had not fulfilled the examination requirements.
“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.”
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Criminal Petition No. 633 of 2020 and permitted the jurisdictional police to proceed in accordance with law and submit their report before the trial court expeditiously.
The Court directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to maintain digital enrolment records, track advocates who had not cleared the AIBE within the prescribed period, verify examination results and take appropriate action. It also required the Council to provide affected advocates an opportunity to explain discrepancies before action was taken.
The Bar Council was directed to report compliance within 45 days.
The matter was listed for November 30, 2026.
Case Details
- Case Title: M. Prasanna Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Others
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 633 of 2020
- Judge: Justice H.P. Sandesh
- Decision Date: October 17, 2026
