The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on a litigant who accused a magistrate judge of behaving as if she was going to acquit the litigant in a criminal trial before ultimately convicting him for the alleged offence [Rajneesh Chaturvedi v High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others]. 

In this regard, the litigant claimed that the trial court judge had told him that he did not require any defence witnesses because none of the prosecution witnesses had implicated him, implying there was not enough evidence for a conviction.

The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Amit Seth said the reason for filing such a complaint against the judicial officer appeared to be to get a finding regarding the criminal case and use the same to influence proceedings in the appeal against the trial court order.

The High Court added that the complaint amounted to an attempt to make frivolous and outrageous allegations against the judicial officer.  

“As it is, the Judges of the District Judiciary of Madhya Pradesh find themselves between the devil and the deep sea. On one side it has the High Court, literally breathing down their neck, instilling in them an unwarranted fear of action on the administrative side for their judicial orders resulting in acquittals and granting bails, and on the other hand of this spectrum, the district judiciary judges have to face such frivolous complaints from unscrupulous litigants who exploit the mindset of the High Court in order to bring pressure to bear upon the judges of the district judiciary. This is most deplorable and needs to be dealt with a heavy hand,” the Court further remarked. 

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by one Rajneesh Chaturvedi in relation to his complaint against Judicial Magistrate First Class Khalid Tanveer. Chaturvedi was convicted in 2022 under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to a public servant. 

Chaturvedi challenged this trial court conviction before an appellate court.

During the pendency of his appeal, Chaturvedi made a complaint to the High Court that the trial judge had assured him of his acquittal by openly stating that two prosecution witnesses had become hostile and that the cross-examination of the third witness could not be done. 

In a writ petition before the High Court, Chaturvedi said that he was aggrieved by the manner in which his complaint was being dealt with by High Court on the administrative side. It was argued that administrative decisions must be reasoned.

Considering the arguments, the Bench headed by Justice Sreedharan said only the High Court can examine and decide on the allegations against a judge of the District Judiciary. 

“A complainant merely does the work of a messenger by bringing to the notice of the High Court the error on the part of the Judge. The wrong if any, committed by the erring Judge acting in his/her judicial capacity, its cognizance can only be taken by the High Court. The complainant is not a person aggrieved when he or she intimates the High Court to act against the erring Judge for his judicial decision and the role of the complainant comes to an end with the complaint being preferred before the High Court. Whether or not to act against such a judge of the District Judiciary on the administrative side, is not a legal right vested in the complainant, but the prerogative of the High Court under article 227,” the Court added.

However, the Court also clarified that a person aggrieved by the actions of a judge that are unrelated to the discharge of judicial or official duties, can avail other legal remedies against the judge. 

“An example in this regard may be a case where a Judge of the District Judiciary is accused of assaulting a private citizen for which there is alternate remedy which may exist in tandem with the right of the High Court to examine the actions of the Judge on the administrative side also,” it explained.

In the present case, the Court found Chaturvedi’s claims to be unverified, preposterous and fanciful.

“The allegation is with regard to an undertaking given by the judge (respondent No.2) that the petitioner would not be required to produce the defence witnesses as the prosecution evidence itself is inadequate to convict. No reference with regard to place, time, date or where such statements were made is given in the complaint,” the High Court said, while dismissing the petition. 

Senior Advocate Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah with advocate Muskan Anad represented the petitioner.

Government Advocate Rajvardhan Dutt Pararha represented the State. 

[Read Judgment]