Accused Can’t Invoke High Court’s Jurisdiction Under Art. 226 Or U/S 482 CrPC Through His Power Of Attorney: Karnataka High Court
[10 June 2022] The Karnataka High Court has held that a power of attorney holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by one Samantha Christina Delfina Willis and others who are residing in London and had filed a petition seeking to quash a complaint filed by her husband.
The bench said “I hold that the present petition filed by the power of attorney holder of the accused, without seeking any permission at the hands of this Court, and without even narrating in the petition that he is personally aware of the facts of the case, the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is per se not maintainable, as the accused cannot be represented by a power of attorney holder and thus, maintain the subject petition.”
Ongoing through the records the bench observed, “The power of attorney appended to the petition is executed at Bangalore, but signed by the executants before the Notary at London. There is no averment in the entire petition that the said power of attorney holder is aware of the facts of the case. There being no averment to the effect that the power of attorney holder has full knowledge of what is being filed and the reason for presenting the petition by the said power of attorney holder. Notwithstanding the fact that it is filed invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court as an amalgam to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the writ petition would not become maintainable.”
The bench then referred to the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Amrinder Singh V. State Of Nct Of Delhi, where it was held that an accused cannot recourse to a third party, such as a Power of Attorney holder, to represent him in criminal proceedings. It then observed, “On a coalesce of the judgments so rendered by the Constitutional Courts, what can be unmistakably gathered is that the power of attorney holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
As regards suppression of fact, the petitioner was arrested and then released on bail. The bench noted there is no whisper about the afore-narrated facts and events that have been suppressed by the petitioners while filing the present petition. It said, “Therefore, there can be no doubt that the petitioners are guilty of approaching this Court with unclean hands and such petitions should be thrown to the winds by imposition of exemplary costs.”
It added, “If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioners are guilty of misleading the Court, the petition is to be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merit of the claim.”