Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes "Conspiracy" Complaint Filed By CJM’s Wife Against Former Chief Justice & Other Judges

The Court held that the complaint was based merely on suspicion that a chargesheet in a criminal case had not been filed due to an alleged conspiracy and did not disclose any specific overt acts or factual material constituting the ingredients of criminal offences.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed: “This Court is satisfied that the impugned complaint is devoid of material particulars, does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence against the then Chief Justice and one sitting Judge of this Court as also Respondent Nos. 11 to 19, and is an attempt to convert administrative or personal grievances into a criminal prosecution.

Background

The case arose from a criminal complaint filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, by the wife of a judicial officer.

The complaint levelled serious allegations against the then Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court, a sitting judge of the Court, and several members of the higher judicial service of the State. The Magistrate had entertained the complaint and fixed the matter for the recording of preliminary evidence.

The allegations were linked to an incident that allegedly occurred at a toll plaza on a national highway when the complainant and her husband were travelling to their native village. It was alleged that the husband was abused and misbehaved with by certain individuals, in connection with which an FIR had been registered at the relevant police station.

The grievance raised in the complaint was that the police had not filed a chargesheet in that FIR because of a conspiracy involving police authorities, members of the judicial service, and the then Chief Justice, along with another judge of the High Court.

The High Court administration, through the Registrar General, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the complaint and the order of the Magistrate that had fixed the matter for recording of preliminary evidence.

Court’s Observation

After examining the complaint and the pleadings on record, the Court held that the allegations against the judges and judicial officers were wholly vague and unsupported by material particulars.

The Bench noted that the complainant herself described the alleged conspiracy only as an “apprehension” that the chargesheet had not been filed due to some influence or intervention. The complaint did not contain any assertion of a specific overt act, agreement, meeting of minds, or circumstance that could establish the ingredients of criminal conspiracy.

The Court further observed that the offences cited in the complaint under the Indian Penal Code related to the alleged toll plaza incident and had no connection with the judges or judicial officers arrayed as accused.

It also noted that an FIR had already been registered in relation to that incident at the instance of the judicial officer concerned. The attempt to implicate members of the judiciary in the alleged non-filing of the chargesheet, without any factual basis, was found to be untenable.

The Court emphasised that the initiation of criminal proceedings against constitutional functionaries and members of the higher judicial service carries serious consequences not only for the individuals involved but also for the institutional integrity of the judiciary.

The Bench observed that criminal law cannot be invoked as a tool to ventilate personal or administrative grievances or to scandalise judicial institutions.

Referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide intention.

The Court also rejected the argument that the complaint could not be interfered with at the stage of preliminary inquiry. It held that where a complaint on its face fails to disclose the essential ingredients of any offence and is based purely on conjectures, the High Court is empowered to intervene in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The Bench also noted that several allegations raised by the complainant related to administrative matters such as transfer, stoppage of increment, and termination of service of the judicial officer. The Court held that such matters fall within the domain of service jurisprudence and cannot be converted into allegations of criminal conspiracy in the absence of concrete material.

Conclusion

In view of the above findings, the Court held that continuation of the complaint proceedings against the judges and judicial officers would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the criminal complaint insofar as it related to the Chief Justice, the sitting judge, and other judicial officers, along with the order of the Magistrate directing the recording of preliminary evidence against them.

Cause Title: High Court of Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:10455)

Appearances

Petitioner: Dr N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate; Amrito Das, Advocate

Respondents: Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General, Sareena Khan, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment