Justice Anand Pathak & Justice Hirdesh, Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judicial Officers Acting In Judicial Capacity Are Protected Under Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Action Against Judicial Officer
|A Writ Petition was considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against two Judicial Officers, an Advocate and a Handwriting Expert.
While dealing with a Writ Petition seeking the institution of criminal proceedings against two Judicial Officers, an Advocate and a Handwriting Expert, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the bar under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution remains against interference in judicial decision-making unless there is malafide apparent on record or cogent evidence available on record.
The Writ Petition was filed by a person whose Suit was dismissed by the Trial Judge.
With regard to accusations against the Advocate, the Court noted that grievances relating to professional misconduct or unethical behaviour of the Advocate are to be addressed before the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), which lays down the guidelines on how Judicial Officers may be proceeded against in exceptional circumstances. The Bench noted, “Such steps require prior sanction from competent authority as provided under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.”
The Petitioner appeared in person, while the Respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody.
Brief Facts
A petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to initiate criminal proceedings against the Respondents, who are notably two Judicial Officers, an Advocate and a Handwriting Expert.
Before filing the present petition, the Petitioner filed a Suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction; however, the same was dismissed by the Civil Court. It was the contention of the Petitioner that judicial officers concerned misused their post and power in collusion with other Respondents and created false evidence.
While the Respondent State contended that the Writ Petition in question seems to be a continuation of the Petitioner's grievance arising from the dismissal of his suit, and does not disclose any cause for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court’s Reasoning
On perusal of the Writ Petition, the High Court was of the opinion that the reliefs sought by the petitioner are serious allegations against Judicial Officers, a practising Advocate and a handwriting expert, who have performed their official and professional duties in judicial proceedings.
While dealing with the accusations against the Judicial Officers (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2), the Bench reiterated that Judicial Officers, while acting in their judicial capacity, are protected under law and cannot be subjected to prosecution or personal allegations in collateral proceedings.
In regard to allegations against the Advocate (Respondent No. 3), the Court noted that such grievances relating to professional misconduct are to be dealt with before the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India. Thus, the Court gave the liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Bar Council for appropriate redressal.
Furthermore, with reference to the allegations against the Handwriting Expert (Respondent No. 3), the Court noted that the acceptance/ rejection of the expert evidence is a judicial discretion of the trial court, and such assessment cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Besides, the Division Bench observed, “The entire grievance of the petitioner seems from the adverse findings recorded by the civil court in the judgment and decree dt.06.07.2024. Furthermore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, he has a remedy of filing an appeal or review before the competent forum.”
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Court, noting it to be wholly untenable. However, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if available.
Cause Title: Kamlesh Chaturvedi V. Saksham Adhikari Dwitiya Vyavhar Nyayadheesh & Ors.