The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a 2016 complaint against Navin Sinha and P Diwaker, with a bench led by Ramesh Sinha finding no cognizable offence or specific allegations.
CHHATTISGARH: The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently dismissed a 2016 criminal complaint made by the wife of a former judicial officer against then Chief Justice Navin Sinha, former judge Justice P Diwaker, and several members of the higher judicial service in the state.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the complaint lacked essential particulars and did not demonstrate that any cognizable offence had been committed by the Chief Justice, the other judge, or any judicial officers.
ALSO READ: Former SC Judge, Navin Sinha Calls for Effective Criminal Law Reforms to Tackle Crime
Factual Backgrounds:
The complainant, Pratibha Gwal, claimed that her husband, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Prabhakar Gwal who was subsequently dismissed was abused by individuals at a toll plaza in October 2015, which led to the filing of a criminal case.
In her 2016 complaint, she alleged that the police had not filed a chargesheet regarding that incident due to a conspiracy involving police officials, judicial service members, and even Chief Justice Sinha and Justice Diwaker.
After the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Raipur accepted her complaint and scheduled the case for preliminary evidence gathering, the High Court, through its Registrar General, filed a writ petition to quash the proceedings.
Observations of the High Court:
The Bench concluded that the complaint was an attempt to convert personal or administrative grievances into a criminal prosecution.
It stated,
“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 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.”
The Bench further indicated that allowing such a prosecution to continue would not serve justice but instead expose the involved individuals to unnecessary harassment and the burdens of a criminal trial without a legal foundation.
The Court ordered,
“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 also annulled the magistrate’s decision to schedule Gwal’s complaint for preliminary evidence against the proposed accused, but clarified that the proceedings could continue regarding any other proposed accused mentioned in the complaint.
The judgment noted that, although the complaint was filed by Gwal, the grievances primarily concerned her husband in his official capacity and were based on information he alone possessed from his official dealings.
The Court stated,
“The affidavit supporting 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],”
Senior Advocate NK Shukla, representing the High Court Registrar General, contended that the complaint was filled with broad allegations and lacked the essential elements of any cognizable offence.
He argued,
“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.”
Additional Advocate General Praveen Das appeared on behalf of the State, indicating that the State would respect any court order in the matter and held no independent objections to the case’s merits being adjudicated.
Advocate Sareena Khan, representing the complainant, argued that the High Court’s petition was entirely misguided, malicious, and intended to protect certain high-ranking officials from legitimate scrutiny. She also asserted that her husband was included as a respondent solely to create bias and tarnish his reputation.
In written submissions, Gwal alleged a broader conspiracy against him and his family, initiated by various administrative actions, including a transfer to a Naxal-affected area, repeated notices, withholding of his annual increment, and ultimately his termination.
The Court emphasized that summoning constitutional functionaries and members of the higher judiciary could have serious repercussions, not only for the individuals but also for the institutional integrity of the judicial system.
It remarked,
“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 pointed out that the entire complaint was based on mere suspicion and apprehension.
Regarding the allegation of criminal conspiracy, it stated,
“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 complaint were taken at face value, it did not establish any offence against the respondents.
ALSO READ; Supreme Court Refers Automatic Stay Order Vacation Issue to Five-Judge Bench for Review
The Court reiterated that allegations related to administrative actions such as transfer and termination from service fall under service jurisprudence and cannot be misrepresented as criminal conspiracy without substantial evidence.
While quashing the complaint, the Bench concluded,
“Allowing such broad accusations against members of the judiciary and public servants to proceed without foundational facts would severely undermine institutional integrity and open the floodgates for disgruntled litigants or officers to make unfounded allegations,”
Gwal, who joined the service as a Civil Judge, Class-II in 2005, was promoted to Civil Judge, Class-I in 2012, and later became an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in Raipur in 2015. While serving as ACJM, he filed complaints against a sitting MLA and senior police officials without High Court permission, which resulted in multiple show cause notices. Around that time, his wife made serious allegations of conspiracy to constitutional authorities.
Due to his repeated complaints and allegations including those against sitting judges he was dismissed in 2016. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to terminate Gwal from judicial service last year.
Case Title: High Court of Chhattisgarh v State of Chhattisgarh
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE