The Supreme Court of India rebuked a West Bengal judicial officer for filing a forgery case against his brother via the Magistrate route instead of lodging a police complaint. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed it “the grossest abuse of juridical office,” urging action.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court criticized a judicial officer from West Bengal for initiating a criminal case of forgery against his own brother through the Magistrate route, rather than opting for a police complaint.
A Bench led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed serious concerns about how the judge instantiated criminal proceedings.
The Court stated,
“This is the grossest abuse of juridical office. The judge should be sent home,”
ALSO READ: Kozhikode Judicial Officer Apologizes for Misconduct Amid Employee Outcry
The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the Calcutta High Court’s decision, which had quashed the criminal case, and also refused to entertain the judge’s appeal. Ultimately, the judge chose to withdraw his appeal.
Factual Background:
The issue originated from a private complaint that the judicial officer filed on January 6, 2022, before a Magistrate. In his complaint, the judge accused his brother of forging his signature and creating a fake court seal for an LLM dissertation submitted to Annamalai University.
Following the complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and initiated proceedings. The brother subsequently approached the Calcutta High Court to seek the quashing of these proceedings. The High Court annulled the criminal case in its entirety, including the cognizance order and summons.
The Court concluded that the judicial officer had misused his official position in what it termed a personal dispute, emphasizing that a judge dealing with personal matters should file a police complaint like any other citizen instead of leveraging their status to influence the judicial process.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reverses Kerala HC’s Disciplinary Action Against Judicial Officer
Additionally, the High Court directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the judge involved.
Displeased with this outcome, the judicial officer escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. Before the apex court, he argued that he had lodged the complaint in his capacity as a victim of forgery and that there were no legal barriers preventing a judge from filing a private complaint with a Magistrate.
However, when the case was presented to the Supreme Court, it expressed firm disapproval of the judge’s conduct and decided against granting any relief. As a result, the judge chose to withdraw his plea.
The judge was represented by advocate Dilip Annasaheb Taur, while the respondents were represented by advocates Suryanu Sengupta, Samarth Krishan Luthra, and Dhrubajit Saikia.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE