The High Court of Karnataka has pulled up the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences besides admonishing its registrar for filling a criminal case of cheating against an advocate, who was among varsity’s panel of advocates, accusing him of conniving with opposite parties in a litigation and representing the university sans its authorisation.
While directing RGUHS and its registrar, M.R. Ravikumar, to exercise caution while registering such reckless complaints, the court also cautioned them that any such iteration of the kind of haste would be viewed seriously.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by advocate Shivakumar S. Badwadagi of Dharwad and quashing the First Information Report against him by RGHUS.
The court noted that the petitioner, who was a member of panel of advocates for the RGUHS for nearly two decades, was asked by the High Court in a batch of petitions filed by accused persons in the case of PG Entrance Exam-2010 malpractice. He had accepted the notice on behalf of the RGUHS on court’s instruction and the court had disposed of those petitions in terms of an order passed earlier in a similar petition filed by other accused persons.
After Mr. Shivakumar communicated the court’s order, the RGUHS lodged a criminal case against him accusing him of conniving with the accused persons and helping them in disposal of their petitions. Also, the RGUHS had issued statement in the newspapers that he was removed from the panel of the university and a criminal case has been registered against him.
“The act of the petitioner in representing the university before the court and the court allowing the petitions following an earlier judgment can never lead to registration of the crime...” the court said while pointing out that the RGUHS neither conducted any preliminary inquiry against the petitioner nor placed any material for the allegations levelled against him.
Described the RGUHS’s complaint as tainted with mala fides, allegations are inherently improbable and does not make out a crime against the petitioner, the court said that “such frivolous complaint, if permitted to continue, would be putting a premium on the mischief generated by the university, to settle its scores on a panel counsel” who has been representing the university for ages.
