Himachal Pradesh High Court Imposes ₹10,000 Cost, Orders Contempt for Baseless Allegations Against Magistrate

In a stinging rebuke to litigants who weaponise frivolous criminal complaints and hurl unsubstantiated corruption charges at judicial officers, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition with costs and set in motion a process for criminal contempt proceedings. The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla not only threw out the petition filed by Ashish Sharma but also directed that his “reckless and scandalous allegations” against a Judicial Magistrate be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action, observing that such conduct prima facie scandalises the judiciary.

The Complaint that Backfired

The saga began with a service dispute. Ashish Sharma, a former employee of Dayanand Public School, Shimla, had been suspended in 2019 and later removed from service in 2021 following a disciplinary inquiry. Aggrieved, he lodged a criminal complaint against Anupam, a teacher at the same school, accusing her of offences under Sections 406, 420, 463, 468, 471, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. His bone of contention was an experience certificate issued to him which stated that his suspension and removal had been made “after holding a proper inquiry.” Sharma claimed this was a false recital because the inquiry was vitiated – witness Ved Prakash, listed in the memorandum, had never been cross‑examined, rendering the entire disciplinary exercise a sham.

The trial court (Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. V, Shimla) dismissed the complaint, holding that the dispute essentially pertained to the validity of a domestic inquiry and did not disclose any cognizable offence. The revisional court (Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Shimla) concurred, emphasising that criminal courts cannot sit in appeal over departmental proceedings. Undeterred, Sharma approached the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction.

High Court Upholds Lower Courts: Remedy Lies in Service Law

Justice Kainthla wasted no time in upholding the concurrent findings. The court drew upon a settled line of Supreme Court authority that even a void or illegal order remains effective inter partes until set aside by a competent forum. Relying on State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth (1996) 1 SCC 435 and Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar (2020) 7 SCC 275, the judgment stressed that an order of removal “bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead” and must be challenged through the proper legal remedy—not a criminal complaint predicated on an alleged procedural flaw in the inquiry.

Justice Kainthla observed:

“The order of the removal passed by the competent authority is valid unless set aside. In the present case, the order has not been set aside by the competent authority and very basis of the complaint that the inquiry was fake because Ved Prakash was not cross‑examined is legally incorrect; hence, the complaint filed by the complainant that a certificate containing a wrong mention of the proper inquiry is a forged document created to cheat and harm the complainant’s reputation is also without any basis.”

Thus, the court found no infirmity in the dismissal of the complaint by the courts below.

Baseless Allegations Scandalise Judiciary: Court Calls for Contempt

What transformed the case from a routine dismissal into a headline‑making order was a disturbing aspect that came to light during the proceedings. Sharma, in his revision petition, had arrayed the trial court Judicial Magistrate herself as an accused and alleged in paragraph 4(d) that the magistrate had “prepared a false report to protect accused No. 2 in an illegal way, which is a clear‑cut sign of corruption.” The High Court took grave exception to this. Justice Kainthla wrote:

“An allegation of corruption against a judicial officer without foundation made recklessly, prima facie, is an attempt to scandalise the judiciary, and amounts to Criminal Contempt of Court.”

Citing Court on its Own Motion v. Virendra Singh , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 145, the court directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate bench having roster to consider initiating criminal contempt proceedings. This step underscores the judiciary’s zero‑tolerance policy towards attempts to browbeat or denigrate presiding officers through reckless accusations.

₹10,000 Cost as a Deterrent

Highlighting that this was not the petitioner’s first frivolous foray into the courts, Justice Kainthla imposed a cost of ₹10,000 to be deposited in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund within four weeks, failing which the amount would be recoverable as per law. The cost is a clear signal that the court’s precious time will not be allowed to be squandered by parties who misuse the judicial process to settle personal scores.

A Stern Message

The ruling sends a powerful dual message. First, it reiterates that challenges to disciplinary proceedings belong to the realm of service law and labour courts; they cannot be repackaged as criminal complaints. Second, and more importantly, it affirms that the dignity and independence of the judiciary are non‑negotiable. Baseless imputations of corruption against judicial officers will be met with firm action, including contempt proceedings, to preserve public confidence in the justice delivery system. As the order records, the matter will now be examined by the Chief Justice for appropriate contempt action, potentially leading to serious consequences for the litigant who crossed the line.