The Supreme Court pulled up a Jharkhand judicial officer for initiating criminal proceedings in a matter concerning himself without High Court approval. The Bench said he “lacks fundamental knowledge required to be a judicial officer” and dismissed his plea challenging the quashing of the case.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised a judicial officer from Jharkhand for starting criminal proceedings in a matter related to himself without first taking permission from the High Court. The Court made it clear that a serving judicial officer must follow proper legal procedure and cannot independently set the criminal law in motion in cases connected to his own official actions.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed serious concern over the conduct of the officer. During the hearing, the Bench observed that the officer lacked basic understanding required for someone holding judicial office and questioned how he could proceed without mandatory approval from the High Court.
ALSO READ: Kozhikode Judicial Officer Apologizes for Misconduct Amid Employee Outcry
The Bench remarked,
“Did he (the judge) have permission from his High Court before filing a police complaint? The compliant was purportedly filed alleging that something was printed in relation to what you were doing while discharging your official duties.CCS rules require a Judicial officer cannot go around filing FIRs. If judicial officer doesn’t have this knowledge, he does not deserve to continue. He doesn’t have basic fundamental knowledge required to be a judicial officer. Malicious prosecution he’s indulging in,”
The Supreme Court was hearing the officer’s plea challenging an order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had quashed the criminal case initiated by him. However, after the strong observations made by the Bench, the officer chose to withdraw his plea.
The matter dates back to 2018 when the officer was posted as Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) at Garhwa Civil Court. According to him, he had uncovered irregularities in the appointment of a Para Legal Volunteer, Chanda Devi. Following an inquiry, she was taken into custody and later removed from her position.
The officer claimed that after this action, Chanda Devi and her mother became hostile towards him and filed false criminal complaints as a counterblast. He further alleged that the cases against him were found baseless during investigation.
He also alleged that Chanda Devi and her mother conspired with a newspaper editor and ensured defamatory articles were published against him in newspapers like Dainik Bhaskar and Khabar Mantra on March 25, 2019. According to him, the reports were sensational in nature, damaged his reputation, and were intended to extort money.
On this basis, the officer got an FIR registered in 2020 at the Giridih (T) Police Station under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in August 2023. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, took cognisance of the offences on September 8, 2023, and summoned Chanda Devi to face trial.
ALSO READ: Judicial Officers’ Complaints Are Private: Chhattisgarh High Court Bars RTI Disclosure
However, Chanda Devi approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. The High Court allowed her plea and quashed the entire criminal case, treating the matter mainly as one of criminal defamation. It relied on settled legal principles governing prosecution in defamation cases.
Aggrieved by this decision, the judicial officer moved the Supreme Court arguing that the case was not merely about defamation but also involved allegations of extortion, which is a cognisable offence requiring police investigation. He contended that the High Court had gone beyond its jurisdiction and conducted what amounted to a mini-trial at the stage of quashing.
However, the Supreme Court focused on the conduct of the officer himself. The Bench highlighted that a serving judicial officer is bound by institutional discipline and must obtain prior permission from the High Court before initiating criminal proceedings in matters connected to his official duties.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Increases Madhya Pradesh Judicial Officers’ Retirement Age to 61
The Court emphasised that such safeguards are essential to maintain the independence, credibility and propriety of the judiciary.
In view of the strong observations from the Bench, the officer withdrew his petition. The case once again underlines the importance of procedural discipline and accountability even within the judicial system. The officer was represented by advocate Tom Joseph.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Judicial Officers
