Judicial Officers Acting In Official Capacity Cannot Be Prosecuted Unless Malafide Is Apparent: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment (June 16), highlighted that judicial officers, while acting in their judicial capacity, are protected from prosecution. The court reiterated that judicial officers enjoy protection under Section 197 of the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) and interference through Article 226 and 227 is only possible if there is clear malafide intentions or cogent evidence is available. The bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh held, "Judicial officers while acting in their judicial capacity, are protected under law and cannot be subjected to prosecution or personal allegations in collateral proceedings... Even then, 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 case stemmed from a civil suit filed by the petition seeking a declaration and a permanent injunction against a private individual, asserting ownership and possession over a piece of agricultural land in Bandholi Village. The claim was based on a will dated August 6, 1983, executed by the late Tulsidevi in favour of the petitioner. Another will was also drawn up by the defendant, dated August 7, 1998, which, according to the petitioner, was forged by exploiting Tulsidevi's old age. So the petitioner sought a declaration of ownership based on the 1983 will and a permanent injunction preventing dispossession. However, the civil court dismissed the petitioner's suit. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court claiming collusion between the judicial officer, the advocate and the handwriting expert. The petitioner stated, 'Learned court acted in a biased and pre-determined manner, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Petitioner submits that his rights were deliberately suppressed through a conspiracy and respondents No.1 and 2 failed to exercise impartially'. The state, represented by Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody, argued that the allegations by the petitioner lacked substantial evidence and were mostly speculative. It was further submitted that the petitioner has appropriate remedies under the civil appellate process. AAG Mody further argued that the allegations against a judicial officer cannot be entertained in a writ petition without concrete evidence. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655], the court emphasised that judicial officers are protected from personal allegations in collateral proceedings. The court further clarified that to initiate proceedings requires prior sanction from competent authority under Section 197 CrPC. Even then, the court added, that bar under Articles 226 and 227 remains against interference in judicial decision making unless there is a clear malafide intention or cogent evidence available on record. Regarding the allegations against the practising advocate, the court clarified that any complaint of professional misconduct must be addressed to the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961. As for the allegations against the handwrtiting expert, the bench noted that the acceptance or rejection of the handwriting exprt's opinion falls within the discretion of the trial court. Accordingly, the court held that petitioner's grievance arose from the adverse findings of the civil court and he had not availed the appellate remedies available under the law. Instead the petitioner sought criminal prosecution through writ petition, which the court found legally unsustainable. The court, thus, dismissed the writ petition. Case Title: Kamlesh Chaturvedi v Saksham Adhikari Dwitiya Vyavhar Nyayadheesh (WP-8155 of 2025)Click here to read the order

Judicial Officers Acting In Official Capacity Cannot Be Prosecuted Unless Malafide Is Apparent: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags