'Criminal Process Can't Be Used As Tool Of Harassment': Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Complaint Against Former CJ, Sitting Judges
The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a criminal complaint involving serious allegations against a former Chief Justice, a sitting High Court Judge, and several members of the State's Higher Judicial Service.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru remarked that the complaint was founded merely on conjectures, and that permitting omnibus...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a criminal complaint involving serious allegations against a former Chief Justice, a sitting High Court Judge, and several members of the State's Higher Judicial Service.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru remarked that the complaint was founded merely on conjectures, and that permitting omnibus accusations against members of the judiciary and public servants to proceed without foundational facts would seriously impair institutional integrity and “open floodgates for disgruntled litigants or officers to level reckless allegations”.
The judges were accused of being part of a larger conspiracy to influence police investigation and prevent filing of a chargesheet in an FIR arising from a 2015 incident involving the alleged misbehaviour towards a Chief Judicial Magistrate (complainant's husband).
The genesis of the impugned complaint lay in an alleged incident of misbehaviour and abuse at Arang Toll Plaza, meted out to the complainant's husband (respondent 3)— who was then serving as CJM at Sukma. Pursuant to this, an FIR was filed. The specific allegation raised in the complaint was that the police did not file a chargesheet in the said FIR, allegedly due to a conspiracy involving police officials, members of judicial service, the then Chief Justice and a sitting High Court Judge.
However, after examining the complaint the High Court observed,
“… initiation of criminal proceedings is not an empty formality. The summoning of constitutional functionaries and members of the Higher Judicial Service entails serious consequences, not only to the individuals concerned but also to the institutional integrity of the judicial system. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be invoked as a tool of harassment, intimidation or to ventilate administrative or service grievances under the guise of criminal prosecution.”
The Court reiterated that for constituting an offence under Section 120-B IPC (conspiracy), there must be specific allegations indicating agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal or unlawful act by illegal means, and noted that the complaint was conspicuously silent on these foundational aspects. It added,
“This Court finds that the entire edifice of allegations against the Hon'ble the then Chief Justice, a sitting Judge of the High Court, and other judicial officers is founded on mere apprehension and suspicion. The complainant herself has categorically recorded that it is her “apprehension” that the chargesheet in the FIR lodged by her husband was not filed on account of some conspiracy. Apart from such apprehension, there is no specific averment disclosing any overt act, any meeting of minds, any agreement, or any material particulars constituting the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly that of criminal conspiracy.”
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the High Court seeking to quash the criminal complaint against the authorities. It was submitted that the complaint constituted a clear abuse of process of law, containing vague and speculative allegations, and based merely on the apprehension of a conspiracy. They further submitted that the allegations attempted to drag members of judiciary into a personal, service-related grievance of Respondent 3.
In contrast, the complainant (Respondent 2) argued that the petition intended to shield influential persons from scrutiny, and interference of the Court at a preliminary stage was unwarranted. She also alleged a broader conspiracy including allegations of administrative harassment, transfer to Naxal-affected area, stoppage of increments, and eventual termination from service.
The Court held that the offences referred to in the complaint pertained to the alleged incident at the Toll Plaza and do not establish any connection of the judicial authorities with the alleged occurrence.
“The attempt to link them to the non-filing of the chargesheet, without any factual substratum, is clearly an overreach”, the Bench emphasised.
As allegations relating to transfer, stoppage of increment and termination of service of Respondent 3 were also involved, the Court observed that such matters lie squarely within the realm of service jurisprudence and cannot be “camouflaged as criminal conspiracy” in the absence of tangible and cogent material.
Allowing the petition, the Court concluded that continuance of the complaint proceedings before the trial Court would amount to gross abuse of process of law, and would instead subject the concerned persons to unnecessary harassment and the rigours of a criminal trial without foundational basis.
Case Number: WPCR No. 88 of 2016
Case Title: High Court of Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors