The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the plea of a man who challenged an administrative order by the High Court itself, arising from his own complaint alleging that a Judicial Magistrate First Class had assured him of an acquittal during trial proceedings, only for him to be convicted. The petitioner claimed that the magistrate had indicated that two witnesses had become hostile, leaving no point in staging his defence, and repeatedly assured him of exoneration. Surprised by his eventual conviction for voluntarily causing hurt, he filed a grievance before the High Court’s registry seeking enquiry into the magistrate’s conduct, alleging dishonesty and unfairness, and complaining that the Chief Justice had failed to issue a reasoned order in response.
A Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Amit Seth observed that the petitioner’s allegations constituted a blatant attempt to intimidate the district judiciary through frivolous and outrageous claims against the magistrate. The bench emphasized that judges in the district judiciary are caught between two pressures: on one side the High Court, which looms over them with fears of administrative repercussions for judgments involving bail and acquittal, and on the other side, unscrupulous litigants who deliberately exploit that apprehension to exert pressure. Describing this situation as deeply deplorable, the bench decided it warranted a stern response. Consequently, a cost of ₹50,000 was imposed on the petitioner, characterizing his complaint as entirely unverified, fanciful and preposterous.
The court found that the real motive behind the complaint was not a genuine grievance but an attempt to influence concurrent proceedings before the Sessions Court, hoping to secure favorable factual findings on administrative side of the High Court. It held that administrative orders lacking reasoning are not grounds for challenge unless the deficiency causes violation of statutory or constitutional rights, or gives rise to actionable claims. In this case, the petitioner’s challenge did not meet these thresholds. The bench clarified that authority to entertain complaints against the district judiciary rests solely with the High Court, and individuals filing such complaints merely act as messengers, and do not have any right to compel action or outcome. Once the complaint is made, the complainant’s role ends; any decision to act is a discretionary prerogative of the High Court.
Further scrutiny showed the petition lacked essential details: there were no references to time, date, place or the specific circumstances of the alleged assurances by the magistrate. The bench held that without verifiable particulars, the allegations carried no substance. The High Court therefore dismissed the plea entirely.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.