IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Raj Kumar, S/O B.N. Vaish and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar Through District Magistrate and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.530 of 2023
Decided On : 01-05-2024
ALLEGATION - Judicial Misconduct - Sections 341, 342, 323, 337, 338, 307, 302, 34 of IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding the registration of FIRs against judicial officers, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining prior permission from the High Court as per the guidelines established in the Delhi Judicial Service Association case. The court interpreted the delay in FIR registration as procedural rather than malicious, ultimately concluding that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a trial rather than quashing the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Principal Judge of the Family Court in Khagaria, was involved in an altercation with a Homeguard, Virendra Prasad Singh, who allegedly threatened him with a rifle. Following the incident, the Homeguard was hospitalized and later died, leading to a complaint against the petitioner and his wife for assault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including witness statements and medical reports, indicated a prima facie case against the petitioner. The delay in registering the FIR was attributed to the need for judicial permission, not malice.
Issues: Whether the FIR and subsequent charges against the petitioner should be quashed based on the allegations of false implication and the delay in registration of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles for quashing FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC require a prima facie case to be established. The court emphasized that the truth of witness statements could only be determined at trial, and the procedural delay in FIR registration did not negate the legitimacy of the charges.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner to continue.
JUDGMENT :
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
1. This Court proceeds to deliver the judgment based on a very unfortunate allegation against a senior member of Bihar Superior Judicial Service. The Petitioner is a Member of Bihar Superior Judicial Service and was posted as Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria at the relevant point of time. On 1st of February, 2022, the Petitioner left his official quarter early morning for walking at about 05:15 A.M. When he returned to his official residence at about 06:15 A.M., he found that the main gate of his official residence was open. One, Virendra Prasad Singh, Homeguard, since deceased, was on duty at the relevant point of time as Homeguard in the official residence of the Petitioner. Seeing the entrance gate open at the early hour of morning, he asked the above-named Homeguard as to why the gate remained open. At this, the said Homeguard became agitated and abused him saying that it was not his duty to close the entrance gate of the official residence of the Petitioner. There was some exchange of words between the Homeguard and the Petitioner. The aforesaid Homeguard abused him saying that he was not a servant of the father of the Petitioner. In course of altercation, the said Homeguard pointed his service riffle on the chest of the Petitioner and threatened him to open fire to kill him. Immediately, the Petitioner snatched the riffle away from the possession of the Homeguard. Thereafter, he informed the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Khagaria over telephone.
2. It appears from the Muffasil Police Station G.D. Entry No. 3, dated 1st of February, 2022 that on 07:05 A.M., the on duty Police Officer got information over telephone from one Amar Verma, Bench Clerk of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria that some problem cropped up involving a Homeguard deputed at the residence of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria, with the Petitioner. The Sub-Inspector, Gunjan Kumar recorded the said information in the General Diary Book and left the Police Station for the residence of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria at 07:05 A.M. He reached the residence of the Petitioner, appraise of the fact, took charge of the said Homeguard, namely, Virendra Prasad Singh along with the service riffle and 13 rounds of live cartridges from his possession. He also received a written complaint submitted by the Petitioner at his residence and returned to the Police Station at 08:05 A.M. In the G.D Entry No. 7, dated 1st of February, 2022 at 08:05 A.M., it is recorded by S.I., Gunjan Kumar that he returned to the Police Station from the residence of the Petitioner situated at the Judge’s Colony, Sansarpur along with Homeguard, Virendra Prasad Singh and the written application submitted by the Petitioner to him. He also recorded in the G.D. Entry that when he reached the official residence of the Petitioner, he found O.S.D., S.I, Mahendra Singh and a Constable of Police Line present there, to whom the Petitioner was telling the incident involving the said Homeguard. The aforesaid Homeguard was standing at the spot. The Petitioner informed S.I., Gunjan Kumar that the said Homeguard misbehaved with him, threatened to shoot him by placing his riffle on his chest. The said Homeguard handed over his service riffle and cartridges. S.I., Mahendra Singh and the Constable of Police counted the bullets and received the riffle and cartridges to deposit them in the Police line. When S.I, Gunjan Kumar asked the Homeguard about the incident, he could not say anything. He was shivering. The Police Officer noticed abrasions over his nose and upper lips. He had repeatedly asked him to tell his name but it appeared to the Police Officer that he was not in a position to speak. Then, S.I, Gunjan Kumar brought him to the Police Station by his official vehicle. It appears from the documents filed on behalf of the Petitioner that on the basis of the written complaint submitted by the Petitioner, Police registered Kha
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
Delhi Judicial Service Association, TIS Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
Indian Oil Corporation and NEPC India Limited
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla
AI
The court reaffirmed that judicial officers can be prosecuted for criminal offenses, provided the necessary permissions are obtained, and that the evaluation of evidence and witness credibility is re....
The duty of the prosecution to establish that the case is not concocted, the duty of the court to consider delay in filing the FIR, and the importance of prompt registration of FIR for access to just....
Prosecution of the petitioners was found to be malicious, lacking evidentiary basis for allegations of abduction and threats, leading to the quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC.
(1) At the stage of framing of charge probative value of material on record cannot be gone into, material brought on record by prosecution has be accepted as true at that stage.(2) It is no part of o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.