Independence of Judiciary part of basic structure of Constitution: Karnataka HC quashes private complaint against judicial officer

While quashing a private complaint against a judicial officer, the Karnataka High Court has held that independence of the judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

. The order was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi .

. Factual Aspects:

. The complainant’s son was taken to a doctor, who referred the case to a hospital at Davanagere, where the son subsequently died. A First Information Report was lodged against the doctors and others alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) IPC.

. In the meanwhile, a case was registered against the complainant by the manager of a co-operative society for failure repay a loan of Rs 2 lakh. Later on, he was produced before a judicial officer owing to the said case.

. As per the complainant, the said judicial officer (second respondent before the High Court) told him that if he withdraws the complaint against the doctors, he would be released on bail, and that if the complaint was not withdrawn, he would be taken into custody.

. The allegation is that the judicial officer misused his judicial powers and committed offences punishable under Sections 166, 205, 120A, 211, 219 read with Sections 34 and 499 of IPC.

. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judicial officer and nine other accused before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bellary.

. On a July 21, a direction was issued to file a suo motu criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the said complaint filed by the first respondent only insofar as the judicial officer was concerned.

. Arguments raised by Parties

. Amicus Curiae, Advocate Vikram Huilgol submitted that the allegations made in the complaint against the judicial officer are based on the actions done in the course of discharge of his judicial duty. He submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 completely protects the judicial officer from such prosecution.

. Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the suo motu power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised only in those cases where public interest is involved and therefore, the exercise of power in this case was uncalled for.

. What the Court held

. After hearing the submissions of parties, the Court delved into the protection granted to judicial officers under the provisions of the various enactments.

. With regard to the Judges Protection Act, 1985, the Court held

. “…all the allegations made against him by the first respondent are about the acts done by the said Judicial Officer in the course of, acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official or judicial duty. The spoken words which are attributed to the first respondent by the second respondent in his complainant, are also spoken in the course of acting or purporting to act in discharge of his duties as a Judicial Officer. Therefore, Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1985 is clearly applicable and hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate could not have entertained the complaint filed by the first respondent as against the second respondent.” Karnataka High Court . The Court further observed that for attracting the protection of Section 3(1) of the 1985 Act, the act, thing or words of the judicial officer need not have been done or said in good faith. This is an additional protection extended to judicial officers for protecting them against both civil and criminal cases, the Court observed.

. On the argument of improper exercise of suo motu power under Secion 482 of CrPC, the Court held the following,

. "There is nothing in Section 482 which suggests that the suo motu power of this Court can be exercised only in public interest. Assuming that it could be exercised only in public interest, there is definitely an element of public interest involved in the present petition. Independence of judiciary is one of the basic structures of the Constitution of India." Karnataka High Court . With these observations, the complaint filed before the subordinate court with respect to the judicial officer was quashed and set aside by the High Court.

. [Read the order]

Independence of Judiciary part of basic structure of Constitution: Karnataka HC quashes private complaint against judicial officer

Rintu Mariam Biju

Related Stories