Judicial and administrative orders must be reasoned to ensure accountability.

ORDER

Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan The present petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 18/05/2024 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the High Court filed the complaint (as non-actionable) preferred by the petitioner against a Judge of the District Judiciary (respondent No. 2 herein) without giving any reasons.

2. The petitioner in this case was prosecuted and tried before respondent No.2 Ms. Khalida Tanveer, the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umariya, interalia for an offence under Sections 332 IPC (for which he was convicted). The petitioner was proceeded against on the basis of FIR being Crime No.12/2015, Police Station Umariya Kotwali, District Umariya, which led to the registration of RCT No.600115/2015 in which the petitioner was tried and acquitted for offences under Sections 294 and 506 (II) IPC, but was held guilty for offence under Section 332 IPC. It may be mentioned here that Section 332 IPC relates to an offence against a public servant acting in the discharge of his duties. The judgment of conviction and sentence is dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure P/2).

3. Undisputedly, an appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2022 which is pending before the Ld. Court of Sessions at Umariya. While the said appeal was pending, a complaint (Annexure P/12) dated 09.02.2024 was preferred before the High Court by the Petitioner against the respondent No.2, which is Annexure P/12, addressed to the Registrar (Vigilance). In the said complaint, the petitioner has gone on record stating that three eye witnesses produced before the trial Court did not implicate the petitioner for the offence under Section 332 IPC. The complainant further stated that the respondent No.2 had allegedly assured the petitioner that it was not necessary to produce any defence witnesses as none of the prosecution witnesses have implicated him. He further states that the respondent No.2 “openly” told him that two witnesses have become hostile and the cross-examination of the third witness could not be done. Therefore, there was no point in the petitioner bringing any evidence in his defence. He further states that the respondent No.2 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. He has thereafter expressed his surprise upon being convicted. He further states that it gave him an impression that the respondent No.2 is not conducting her Court honestly and fairly and that an enquiry deserves to be ordered against respondent No.2.

4. The complaint was examined on the administrative side by this Court and thereafter the matter was placed before the Lord Chief Justice, who perused the complaint and directed that the matter be filed. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which his complaint has been dealt with by this Court as the same has been filed without passing a reasoned order by the Chief Justice. In other words, the petitioner through his counsel has argued, that even an administrative order passed by this court must be reasoned, disclosing what prevailed in the mind of the Chief Justice while passing the said order and the same being unreasoned, deserves to be set aside and the matter be remanded for disposal of the complaint in accordance with law by a reasoned order.

5. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pas