The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on a judicial officer from West Bengal for filing a criminal case of forgery against his own brother through the Magistrate route instead of filing a police complaint [Jai Prakash Singh vs. Nandlal Singh & Anr.].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took serious exception to the manner in which the judge had set the criminal law in motion.

“This is the grossest abuse of juridical office. The judge should be sent home,” the Court remarked.

It refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court’s decision quashing the criminal case and refused to entertain the judge appeal.

The judge eventually chose to withdraw the appeal.

The case traces back to a private complaint filed on January 6, 2022 by the judicial officer before a Magistrate.

The judge alleged that his brother had forged his signature and created a counterfeit court seal on an LLM dissertation submitted to Annamalai University. Based on the complaint, the Magistrate took cognisance under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process.

The brother then approached the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

The High Court quashed the criminal case in its entirety, including the cognisance order and summons. While doing so, it held that the judicial officer had misused his official position in what it viewed as a personal dispute.

It observed that a judge involved in a personal matter should file a police complaint like any other citizen and not invoke his position in a manner that could influence the process.

The High Court further directed that a copy of its judgment be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the judge.

Aggrieved by this, the judicial officer moved the apex court.

Before the Supreme Court, he contended that he had filed the complaint in his personal capacity as a victim of forgery and that there was no legal bar preventing a judge from filing a private complaint before a Magistrate.

However, when the matter came up before the top court, it expressed strong disapproval on the conduct of the judge and declined to grant any relief.

Consequently, the judge withdrew his plea.

The judge was represented by advocate Dilip Annasaheb Taur.

The respondents were represented by advocates Suryanu Sengupta, Samarth Krishan Luthra, and Dhrubajit Saikia.

[Read Order]