Investigation Into Reason For Judge's Recusal By Litigant Would Be Interference With Course Of Justice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that an investigation into the cause or reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice.

Justice Asha Menon added that the discretion of the concerned judge in the matter of disclosure is absolute.

"When a judge recuses, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire. The recusal has to be respected, whether a reason has been spelt-out in detail or not. Had a judge refrained from giving a reason for recusal, no one can insist on the judge making such disclosures," the Court said.

It added "It would be setting out on a precipice, if a Judge who recuses for disclosed or undisclosed reasons, was then sought to be examined on oath in a complaint case which a litigant before the court chooses to initiate, on the pretext of enquiring into a possible corruption case, and to be compelled to make disclosures under oath that in its considered view were not required while recusing."

The Court was dealing with a plea assailing the order dated 16th July, 2020, passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), in a Complaint Case seeking registration of FIR.

It was the allegation of the petitioner that the complainant had sought to influence the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, as in the order dated 17th August 2017 it was so recorded.

It was submitted that thereafter, since a grave offence had been committed i.e., the interference with the administration of justice, as well as an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 186 IPC and other penal provisions, the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 15th February 2018 but no FIR was registered, despite requests to superior police officers.

As a consequence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (PC Act) seeking registration of FIR against five named persons and other unknown persons. The Special Judge, however, dismissed the application holding that no investigations were warranted as the identity of the accused persons was well within the knowledge of the complainant and the assistance of the police was not required to collect evidence at that stage.

The Court was of the view that there was absolutely no merit in the plea, adding that Special Judge was justified in disallowing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directing the registration of an FIR, as no police investigation was required in the matter.

"However, it is the view of this Court that the learned Special Judge erred in allowing the petitioner to lead evidence in the complaint filed by her," Court added.

Noting that the petitioner was seeking full disclosures by forcing the police to make inquiries from the Metropolitan Magistrate who, in order to ensure fairness in the trial, chose to recuse, the Court said:

"It was for the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate to decide whether to initiate any contempt or other criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the "known person". The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not find any need to do so and it is not for the petitioner to question that decision, which is what she is seeking to achieve by insisting on the registration of an FIR and filing a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. To that extent the refusal of the police to register the FIR and the refusal of the learned Special Judge to advise the registration of the FIR are both proper."

The Court therefore quashed all proceedings in the Complaint Case pending before the Special Judge at the stage of complainant‟s evidence.

The Court also dismissed the plea seeking registration of the FIR and quashing of the order of the Special Judge with a cost of Rs.10,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Case Title: SHERRY GEORGE v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 321

Click Here To Read Order