Bengaluru. The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against a man accused of posing as a lawyer and allegedly taking more than ₹21 lakh from a widow on the promise of resolving her property dispute. The court observed that the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclosed criminal elements and that the proceedings could not be terminated merely by treating the matter as a civil dispute.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by the accused, who had sought quashing of the FIR. The case involves allegations against two persons, one of whom allegedly represented himself as an advocate and approached the woman with an assurance that he could help resolve her pending property litigation.
FCRF Launches CP-FRM to Build India’s Next Generation of Fraud Risk Professionals
According to the complaint, the woman was seeking a legal solution to a dispute concerning property. During this period, the accused allegedly assured her that they could help settle the pending litigation. It is alleged that, relying on these assurances, the woman paid the accused more than ₹21 lakh.
The accused approached the High Court arguing that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. Since the underlying matter concerned property, the petitioner contended that continuing criminal proceedings on the basis of the FIR was not justified. The petition therefore sought the quashing of the FIR and the proceedings arising from it.
The High Court, however, did not accept the argument. After considering the allegations and the material placed before it, the court held that the case was not limited to a dispute concerning property or recovery of money. The alleged conduct, including the claim of having legal credentials and the alleged collection of money on that basis, disclosed elements that warranted criminal investigation.
The court also reiterated that the existence of a civil dispute does not automatically prevent criminal proceedings. Where a complaint contains allegations of cheating or obtaining money by allegedly inducing a person to believe in a false representation, and those allegations prima facie indicate the commission of an offence, the investigation cannot ordinarily be stopped at the initial stage.
The allegation that one of the accused posed as an advocate was also relevant to the proceedings. The complaint alleges that the woman was made to believe that the accused had the necessary legal knowledge and ability to resolve her property dispute. The alleged representation was followed by the payment of more than ₹21 lakh, according to the allegations before the court.
The key issue before the High Court was whether the FIR could be quashed simply because the dispute had its origin in a property matter. The court answered the issue in the negative. It found that the nature of the allegations and the circumstances described in the complaint required the matter to be examined through the criminal investigation process.
With the dismissal of the petition, the FIR and related criminal proceedings against the accused can continue. The High Court’s order allows the investigation to proceed and leaves the allegations to be examined through the appropriate legal process.
The court’s decision does not amount to a finding that the accused is guilty. The allegations remain subject to investigation and further proceedings. The investigation will determine the circumstances in which the money was allegedly taken, whether the accused actually represented himself as a lawyer, what assurances were made to the woman, and whether those representations were false.
The case also highlights the distinction between civil and criminal liability. A dispute may involve property, contracts or money and still contain allegations that, if established, could constitute a criminal offence. Therefore, the mere presence of a civil component is not sufficient by itself to invalidate an FIR at the preliminary stage.
By refusing to quash the FIR, the Karnataka High Court has allowed the allegations of alleged deception and collection of money on the promise of resolving litigation to be investigated. The final determination of responsibility will depend on the evidence collected during the investigation and the subsequent legal proceedings.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
