'No Civil Or Criminal Proceedings Against Acts Done By Judicial Officers In Discharge Of Official Duties': Karnataka HC Quashes Complaint Against Magistrate [Read Order]

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said the proceedings only against the respondent no 2 (Judicial Magistrate) is quashed and set aside.

"...we clarify that the complaint against the other accused shall proceed. We direct the Registrar Judicial to forward the order to all the district judges who in turn will forward the same to all judicial officers in their districts."

The Court referred to the Judges (Protection) Act 1985 and Section 77 of the Indian Penal Code to quash the complaint filed in respect of certain statements alleged to have been made by the judicial officer against the complainant.

"For an act or word committed, done or spoken by a Judicial Officer in the course of acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty or function, no court can entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against the judicial officer", the HC observed referring to the Judges(Protection) Act.

The court had on September 18, reserved its judgment in the suo-motu criminal petition after hearing the submissions made by the amicus curiae and the counsel for the complainant. The court had by an earlier order stayed the private complaint registered under sections 166, 205, 120 (A) 211, 219, 499 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the Judicial Magistrate First Class, (JMFC)

Amicus Curiae Vikram Huilgol had submitted that the 2nd Respondent, being a judicial officer in Karnataka, is a "judge" who is entitled to protection under Section 3(1) of the Judges Protection Act and Section 77 of the IPC. Further, the fulcrum of the complaint filed by the 1st Respondent (C M Manjunath) is the order of the 2nd Respondent remanding him to judicial custody and thereafter declining to hear his bail application. These are acts done in the course of the judicial/official functions and, therefore, no court can entertain any civil or criminal proceeding against him, as per the provisions of Section 3(1) of the JP Act.

Huilgol also said that Section 3(2) of the JP Act ensures that the authorities are not powerless from initiating action against a judge who may have abused his judicial powers or exercised them for extraneous considerations and permits only the Central/State Government, Supreme Court, High Court, and any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take action (civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against a Judge.

He added that section 3(2) constitutes the only exception to the immunity provided under Section 3(1) and, therefore, there is an absolute bar on civil/criminal action being initiated at the instance of a private party such as the 1st Respondent. The question of granting sanction to the 1st Respondent, who is a private party, to initiate prosecution against a judge does not arise.

Advocate M C Veerabhadraiah appearing for the complainant argued :

"Suo motu case registered is completely unconstitutional, substantial question of law would arise. This court can register a suo-motu case in the interest of the public and not for individual purposes, in favour of a judicial officer. Moreover, the allegation made by the complainant is not against the judiciary but the allegation is against this individual person who happens to be the judicial officer.

It was also submitted by him that the accused (Judge) is being influenced by a State Minister, without conducting a trial the true facts of the allegation will not come out. The Judges protection act will not be helpful to the JMFC.

The court had while staying the proceedings against the judicial officer had observed "Prima facie it appears to us that impugned complaint so far as respondent 2 (Judicial Officer) is concerned is not maintainable in view of protection granted under provisions of Judge (Protection ) Act 1985, and section 77 of Indian Penal Code."

Manjunath had filed a complaint on the administrative side addressed to the Chief Justice making certain grievances against the Judicial Officer, about the alleged statements made by the officer during remand proceedings. The secretary to the Chief Justice replied to him saying that the remedy available to him was on the judicial side. 

In his private complaint filed before the Principal District Judge, the complainant projected the reply letter  as permission granted for prosecuting the judicial officer.