'Attempt To Overawe District Judiciary': MP High Court Fines Litigant ₹50K Who Alleged Magistrate Had Assured Him Of Acquittal
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a man's plea challenging an order passed by the high court on its administrative side on his complaint where he alleged that the trial court had assured him of an acquittal in an FIR, but instead he was convicted for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt. The high court observed that the district judiciary in the state has the high court breathing...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a man's plea challenging an order passed by the high court on its administrative side on his complaint where he alleged that the trial court had assured him of an acquittal in an FIR, but instead he was convicted for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt.
The high court observed that the district judiciary in the state has the high court breathing down its neck on one side and on the other side it has to face frivolous complaints from unscrupulous litigants who exploit the mindset of the High Court to pressurize district court judges.
The man argued before the high court that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) had “openly” told him that two witnesses have become hostile and the cross-examination of the third witness could not be done. He alleged that the JMFC had said that there was no point in the petitioner bringing any evidence in his defence.
He claimed that the JMFC "behaved in a manner as though petitioner was completely innocent and that she was going to pass an order of acquittal, which she is alleged to have assured the petitioner several times during the course of the trial proceedings"; and so when he was convicted he was surprised.
The petitioner filed a complaint before the High Court's Registrar claiming that JMFC does not conduct her court honestly and fairly and that an enquiry deserves to be ordered. He claimed he was aggrieved by the manner in which his complaint has been dealt with by the high court "as the same has been filed without passing a reasoned order by the Chief Justice".
Remarking on the condition of the district judiciary judges, a division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Amit Seth observed in its order:
"The act of the petitioner...is an attempt to overawe the District Judiciary by making frivolous and outrageous allegations against the respondent No. 2. As it is, the Judges of the District Judiciary of Madhya Pradesh find themselves between the devil and the deep sea. On one side it has the High Court, literally breathing down their neck, instilling in them an unwarranted fear of action on the administrative side for their judicial orders resulting in acquittals and granting bails, and on the other hand of this spectrum, the district judiciary judges have to face such frivolous complaints from unscrupulous litigants who exploit the mindset of the High Court in order to bring pressure to bear upon the judges of the district judiciary. This is most deplorable and needs to be dealt with a heavy hand".
Therefore, the bench imposed a cost of Rs, 50,000 on the petition for his "attempt to overawe the District Judiciary by making frivolous and outrageous allegations against the respondent No. 2 (JMFC)". After examining the complaint the bench held that all the facts that are mentioned therein were "absolutely unverified, preposterous and fanciful".
The bench also opined that the actual reason for filing such a complaint was to influence the proceedings before the Sessions Court by getting a finding on the factual aspects relating to the case of the petitioner from the high court on the administrative side.
Background
The proceedings against the petitioner before the trial court commenced based on an FIR for offences under Sections 294 (Obscene acts and songs) and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) IPC. The petitioner claimed that three eyewitnesses were produced before the trial court, but none of them had implicated the petitioner.
However, he was ultimately convicted under Section 332; against this he filed an appeal against the conviction before the Sessions Court. He also filed a complaint against the JMFC before the high court. Against alleged non-assignment of reasons, he moved the writ petition.
Findings
The high court noted that not every administrative order that is deficient in reasoning can be challenged. It held that only those administrative orders which give rise to a cause of action either by way of infringement of any statutory right or constitutional right due to which an adversity has been suffered can be challenged.
"Not every order that is passed by an executive authority can be challenged on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. For a non- speaking order to be challenged, the same must impose a statutory duty on the authority to pass a speaking order or, the same must result in the violation of a statutory or constitutional right of the aggrieved", the bench highlighted.
The court further clarified that before an administrative order is challenged on grounds that it is a non-speaking order, it must either violate a legal or constitutional right or, in some way, violate an existing right giving rise to an actionable claim.
The bench noted that the authority to examine the allegation against the District Judiciary is the exclusive prerogative of the High Court. Therefore, the cognisance of any complaint filed by an individual could only be taken by the High Court. Thus, the person filing the complaint merely does 'the work of a messenger by bringing to the notice of the High Court the error on the part of the judge', it said.
"The allegation is with regard to an undertaking given by the judge (respondent No.2) that the petitioner would not be required to produce the defence witnesses as the prosecution evidence itself is inadequate to convict. No reference with regard to place, time, date or where such statements were made is given in the complaint," the court said.
The bench further clarified that the decision to act or not act on a complaint is the prerogative of the high court and is not a legal right vested with the complainant.
The bench added, "The complainant is not a person aggrieved when he or she intimates the High Court to act against the erring Judge for his judicial decision and the role of the complainant comes to an end with the complaint being preferred before the High Court".
The plea was dismissed.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah with Advocate Muskan Anad
For Respondent: Government Advocate Rajvardhan Dutt Pararha
Case Title: Rajneesh Chaturvedi v High Court of Madhya Pradesh (WRIT PETITION No. 18528 of 2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 165