Chhattisgarh High Court quashes complaint filed against Chief Justice, other judges by CJM's wife

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently quashed a 2016 criminal complaint filed by a former judicial officer's wife against the then Chief Justice Navin Sinha, former judge Justice P Diwaker and several members of the higher judicial service of the State [High Court of Chhattisgarh v State of Chhattisgarh]

The complainant Pratibha Gwal stated that her husband, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Prabhakar Gwal, who was later dismissed from service, in October 2015, was abused by certain persons at a toll plaza, leading to registration of a criminal case.

In the 2016 complaint, she alleged that police did not file a chargesheet in respect of that incident due to a conspiracy involving police officials, members of the judicial service and even the then Chief Justice Sinha and Justice Diwaker.

After an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raipur entertained her complaint and fixed the case for recording of preliminary evidence, the High Court through its Registrar General filed a writ petition to get the proceedings quashed.

In a judgment dated February 28, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru said the complaint was devoid of material particulars and failed to disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the then Chief Justice, the other sitting judge or even the judicial officers.

The complaint was an attempt to convert administrative or personal grievances into a criminal prosecution, the Bench said.

"The continuance of the impugned complaint proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 11 to 19 before the learned trial Court would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. The allegations contained in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The proceedings appear to be manifestly attended with mala fide intention and founded upon conjectures rather than concrete material," it added.

The Bench further said that permitting such prosecution to proceed would not serve the ends of justice but would instead subject the concerned persons to unnecessary harassment and the rigours of a criminal trial without foundational basis in law.

"Accordingly, the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned criminal complaint instituted by Respondent No. 2 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in so far as it pertains to the Respondent Nos. 11 to 19 before the trial Court, is quashed and set aside," the Court ordered.

The Court also quashed the order by which the Raipur magistrate had fixed Gwal's complaint for recording of preliminary evidence against the proposed accused. However, the Bench clarified that the proceedings can continue in respect of any other proposed accused in the complaint case.

The Court in the judgment also noted that though the complaint was filed by Gwal, the alleged grievances pertained to her husband in official capacity. It added that her complaint was based on information in the exclusive knowledge of her husband in his official dealings.

"The affidavit in support of the complaint is sworn by Respondent No. 2 [wife], though the matters alleged primarily relate to official interactions and administrative grievances concerning Respondent No. 3 [husband]," it said

Senior Advocate NK Shukla, representing the High Court Registrar General, argued the complaint contained sweeping and omnibus allegations, lacking in essential ingredients of any cognizable offence.

"The mere non-filing of a chargesheet, even if assumed to be true, does not constitute an offence, much less criminal conspiracy, against judicial officers of the High Court," Shukla submitted.

Additional Advocate General Praveen Das appeared for the State and submitted that State would abide by any court order in the case and has no independent objection to the adjudication of the dispute on its own merits.

Advocate Sareena Khan, representing the complainant, submitted that the High Court's plea was wholly misconceived, malicious and filed with the intent to shield certain high constitutional functionaries from legitimate scrutiny. 

She also argued that then judicial officer Gwal was made a respondent to the petition only to create prejudice and to malign his reputation.

It was also submitted that judicial officer Gwal was subjected to adverse proceedings and criminal registration during the tenure of the then Chief Justice and a sitting judge of the High Court.

In written response, Gwal alleged that a larger conspiracy had been carried out against him and his family, beginning with alleged administrative actions including transfer to a Naxal-affected area, issuance of repeated notices, stoppage of annual increment, and eventual termination from service. 

Considering the submissions, the Court stressed that 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 Bench said.

It added that the entire complaint was based on mere apprehension and suspicion. On the allegation of criminal conspiracy, the Court said,

"It is trite that for constituting an offence under Section 120-B of the IPC, there must be specific allegations indicating an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a lawful act by illegal means. The complaint in question is conspicuously silent on these foundational aspects. The allegations are omnibus, vague and inherently improbable so far as Respondent Nos. 11 to 19 before the trial Court are concerned. Even if the entire complaint is taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, no offence is made out against the said respondents."

The Court also said that allegations regarding administrative actions like transfer and termination from service, lie squarely within the realm of service jurisprudence and cannot be camouflaged as criminal conspiracy in the absence of tangible and cogent material.

"Permitting such 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 Bench underscored, while quashing the complaint.

Gwal joined service as Civil Judge, Class-II in 2005, was promoted to Civil Judge, Class-I in 2012, and later to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Raipur in 2015.

While serving as ACJM, he lodged complaints against a sitting MLA and senior police officers without the permission of the High Court, which invited multiple show cause notices.  Around the same time, his wife also made representations before constitutional authorities, levelling grave allegations of conspiracy.

In view of the repeated complaints and allegations—including those casting aspersions on sitting judges, he was sacked in 2016. The Supreme Court last year upheld the High Court's decision to terminate Gwal from the judicial services.

[Read High Court Judgment]