Judges/Judicial Officers Not Permitted To File FIR In Their Personal Capacity To Subserve Their Personal Interest: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has apprised District Judges and Judicial Officers to not permit any FIR by a Judge/Judicial Officer, in their personal capacity to subserve their personal interest, except the cases of serious and heinous in nature.
The Bench examined allegations of fraud, cheating, fabrication of documents and extortion levelled against the government officials of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Department by Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta, a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). The petitioners sought judicial intervention to quash an FIR filed against them by the CJM.
A Division Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed, “It is therefore basic requirement that a Judge’s official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of the propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is higher than expected from a layman and also higher than expected of an advocate. In fact, even his private life must adhere to high standard of propriety and probity, higher than those deemed acceptable for others...The Judges are also public servant and under the gaze of public at large. They should always remember that they are to serve the public and not for their personal gains or objectives.”
Advocate Baleshwar Chaturvedi represented the petitioners, while GA Anwar Hussain appeared for the respondents.
The residential property in the name of the CJM had a substantial unpaid electricity bill pending. Upon requesting a name change for the electricity connection, Dr. Gupta was informed of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,66,916. Despite efforts to resolve the issue through legal and consumer forums, including a dismissed complaint by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the dispute escalated.
The CJM filed an FIR accusing the petitioners of fabricating documents and extorting money for a new electricity connection. The petitioners argued that the FIR was filed by the CJM in his personal capacity and on his own name after a prolonged dispute over an outstanding electricity bill tied to a residential property he purchased. The FIR listed charges under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, and 386 of the IPC.
“Thus, it is clear that the C.J.M.-Respondent no.4 was trying hard to any how launch a criminal prosecution against the petitioners so as to harass them, though they themselves are government servants. But when Respondent No.4 failed to attain his objective at Lucknow, then he decided to cook up fake story and after auctioning his chair and position as C.J.M., Banda any how managed to lodge the F.I.R. against the petitioners, whose informant was Dr. Bhagwan Das Gupta,” the Bench noted.
“Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court would be deleterious to the efficacy of judicial process.” The Court stated that Judges should maintain the “highest standards of conduct” so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary could be preserved. They stated that judicial ethics demand a higher standard of behavior, which Dr. Gupta, as a CJM, was expected to uphold.
“As per the provisions of Article 261(3) of the Constitution of India the Judges while discharging their duties in the district courts enjoy constitutional authorities. Their position and authority cannot be compared with the position of other civil servants, discharging their duties their peace, law and order in the society, that’s the reason this Court is in favour of calling them as “Judges” and not as a Judicial Officer. They are not officers but Judges,” the Court remarked.
Expressing concerns over the abuse of judicial power, the Court condemned CJM for “stooping down to any level” to influence the lodging of the FIR. Consequently, the court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate further. The SIT was tasked with determining the legitimacy of the FIR, the alleged misuse of power by Dr. Gupta, and the veracity of the bribery claim.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:90017-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Baleshwar Chaturvedi and Mukesh Kumar Singh
Respondents: GA Anwar Hussain and Avinash Mani Tripathi; AGA Ghanshyam Kumar
