Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed against the then Chief Justice of the High Court, a sitting judge, and several members of the higher judicial service, holding that the allegations were vague, speculative, and devoid of any material particulars. The Court examined whether criminal proceedings could be sustained on the basis of mere suspicion and conjecture. Emphasising the gravity of summoning constitutional functionaries to criminal proceedings, the Court observed that criminal law cannot be permitted to be invoked as a tool of harassment or to ventilate administrative grievances under the guise of prosecution.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a criminal complaint filed in March 2016 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, by the wife of a serving judicial officer. The complaint alleged that a conspiracy involving police officials, members of the higher judicial service, and even the then Chief Justice and a sitting judge of the High Court had resulted in the police failing to file a chargesheet in an FIR lodged by her husband. The FIR itself related to an incident that allegedly occurred at a toll plaza where the complainant’s husband claimed he had been abused and mistreated. The Magistrate entertained the complaint and fixed the matter for the recording of preliminary evidence.
Aggrieved by the continuation of proceedings that implicated senior members of the judiciary, the High Court, through its Registrar General, invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the complaint and the Magistrate’s order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the complaint was a blatant abuse of the criminal process, containing sweeping and omnibus allegations without any factual foundation. The Counsel submitted that the complaint did not disclose any specific overt act, meeting of minds, or agreement that could constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The counsel emphasized that the mere non-filing of a chargesheet in an FIR cannot amount to a criminal offence by judicial officers or constitutional authorities. The Petitioner argued that criminal proceedings must be quashed where allegations are vague, inherently improbable, or manifestly malicious.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent, through counsel, opposed the writ petition and contended that the complaint had been filed on the basis of genuine grievances arising from a larger conspiracy against her husband, who was then serving in the judicial service. The Counsel argued that the High Court’s intervention at the preliminary stage of the complaint proceedings, when the Magistrate had only fixed the matter for recording evidence under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was unwarranted. The Respondent further claimed that the complaint sought to expose a sequence of administrative actions, including transfers, disciplinary measures, and termination from service, which allegedly formed part of a broader design to target her family. According to the respondent, the criminal complaint should have been allowed to proceed so that evidence could be examined before the trial court.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined the complaint and the legal principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court stressed the seriousness of initiating criminal prosecution against members of the higher judiciary and public officials, observing that such action carries significant implications for institutional integrity.
The Bench noted that the complaint was fundamentally based on the complainant’s “apprehension” that the police had not filed a chargesheet due to an alleged conspiracy. However, the Court found that the complaint failed to disclose any concrete facts indicating the existence of such a conspiracy.
The Court observed that “It is trite that for constituting an offence under Section 120-B of the IPC, there must be specific allegations indicating an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a lawful act by illegal means.”
The Bench further noted that the allegations against the judges and judicial officers were “omnibus, vague and inherently improbable” and lacked the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Even if the complaint was accepted in its entirety, the Court held, it did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence by the individuals arrayed as accused.
The Court also emphasised that grievances relating to administrative decisions, such as transfer, stoppage of increments, or termination from service, fall within the domain of service jurisprudence and cannot be converted into allegations of criminal conspiracy without substantial material.
While permitting such complaints to proceed, the Bench warned, would undermine the independence of the judiciary and encourage disgruntled litigants to level reckless allegations against judicial officers.
The Court held that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to “a gross abuse of the process of law”, as the allegations were “manifestly attended with mala fide intention and founded upon conjectures rather than concrete material.”
The Court held that permitting the complaint to proceed against them would constitute an abuse of the criminal justice process since the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of any offence.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the criminal complaint and the Magistrate’s order insofar as it related to the Chief Justice, the sitting judge, and other judicial officers.
Case Title: High Court of Chhattisgarh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Case No.: WPCR No. 88 of 2016
Coram: Hon'ble Chief Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Hon'ble Justice Ramesh Sinha
Advocate for the Petitioner: Senior Adv. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Adv. Amrito Das
Advocate for the Respondent: AAG Praveen Das, Adv. Sareena Khan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :